A systematic approach for assessing, in the absence of full evidence, whether multicomponent interventions can be more cost-effective than single component interventions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: Multicomponent interventions (MCIs), consisting of at least two interventions, are common in rehabilitation and other healthcare fields. When the effectiveness of the MCI versus that of its single interventions is comparable or unknown, evidence of their expected incremental cost-effectiveness can be helpful in deciding which intervention to recommend. As such evidence often is unavailable this study proposes an approach to estimate what is more cost-effective; the MCI or the single intervention(s).

Methods: We reviewed the literature for potential methods. Of those identified, headroom analysis was selected as the most suitable basis for developing the approach, based on the criteria of being able to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions versus that of the MCI (a) within a limited time frame, (b) in the absence of full data, and (c) taking into account carry-over and interaction effects. We illustrated the approach with an MCI for cancer survivors.

Results: The approach starts with analyzing the costs of the MCI. Given a specific willingness-To-pay-value, it is analyzed how much effectiveness the MCI would need to generate to be considered cost-effective, and if this is likely to be attained. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions relative to the potential of the MCI for being cost-effective can be compared.

Conclusions: A systematic approach using headroom analysis was developed for estimating whether an MCI is likely to be more cost effective than one (or more) of its single interventions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)444-453
Number of pages10
JournalInternational journal of technology assessment in health care
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Costs and Cost Analysis
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Survivors
Rehabilitation
Delivery of Health Care
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Methodology
  • Multicomponent
  • Multidimensional

Cite this

@article{68f6d056e24d4463962dd0f425bf0acd,
title = "A systematic approach for assessing, in the absence of full evidence, whether multicomponent interventions can be more cost-effective than single component interventions",
abstract = "Objectives: Multicomponent interventions (MCIs), consisting of at least two interventions, are common in rehabilitation and other healthcare fields. When the effectiveness of the MCI versus that of its single interventions is comparable or unknown, evidence of their expected incremental cost-effectiveness can be helpful in deciding which intervention to recommend. As such evidence often is unavailable this study proposes an approach to estimate what is more cost-effective; the MCI or the single intervention(s).Methods: We reviewed the literature for potential methods. Of those identified, headroom analysis was selected as the most suitable basis for developing the approach, based on the criteria of being able to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions versus that of the MCI (a) within a limited time frame, (b) in the absence of full data, and (c) taking into account carry-over and interaction effects. We illustrated the approach with an MCI for cancer survivors.Results: The approach starts with analyzing the costs of the MCI. Given a specific willingness-To-pay-value, it is analyzed how much effectiveness the MCI would need to generate to be considered cost-effective, and if this is likely to be attained. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions relative to the potential of the MCI for being cost-effective can be compared.Conclusions: A systematic approach using headroom analysis was developed for estimating whether an MCI is likely to be more cost effective than one (or more) of its single interventions.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness, Methodology, Multicomponent, Multidimensional",
author = "Mewes, {Janne C.} and Steuten, {Lotte M.G.} and IJzerman, {Maarten J.} and {van Harten}, {Wim H.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1017/S0266462317000721",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "444--453",
journal = "International journal of technology assessment in health care",
issn = "0266-4623",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic approach for assessing, in the absence of full evidence, whether multicomponent interventions can be more cost-effective than single component interventions

AU - Mewes, Janne C.

AU - Steuten, Lotte M.G.

AU - IJzerman, Maarten J.

AU - van Harten, Wim H.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objectives: Multicomponent interventions (MCIs), consisting of at least two interventions, are common in rehabilitation and other healthcare fields. When the effectiveness of the MCI versus that of its single interventions is comparable or unknown, evidence of their expected incremental cost-effectiveness can be helpful in deciding which intervention to recommend. As such evidence often is unavailable this study proposes an approach to estimate what is more cost-effective; the MCI or the single intervention(s).Methods: We reviewed the literature for potential methods. Of those identified, headroom analysis was selected as the most suitable basis for developing the approach, based on the criteria of being able to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions versus that of the MCI (a) within a limited time frame, (b) in the absence of full data, and (c) taking into account carry-over and interaction effects. We illustrated the approach with an MCI for cancer survivors.Results: The approach starts with analyzing the costs of the MCI. Given a specific willingness-To-pay-value, it is analyzed how much effectiveness the MCI would need to generate to be considered cost-effective, and if this is likely to be attained. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions relative to the potential of the MCI for being cost-effective can be compared.Conclusions: A systematic approach using headroom analysis was developed for estimating whether an MCI is likely to be more cost effective than one (or more) of its single interventions.

AB - Objectives: Multicomponent interventions (MCIs), consisting of at least two interventions, are common in rehabilitation and other healthcare fields. When the effectiveness of the MCI versus that of its single interventions is comparable or unknown, evidence of their expected incremental cost-effectiveness can be helpful in deciding which intervention to recommend. As such evidence often is unavailable this study proposes an approach to estimate what is more cost-effective; the MCI or the single intervention(s).Methods: We reviewed the literature for potential methods. Of those identified, headroom analysis was selected as the most suitable basis for developing the approach, based on the criteria of being able to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions versus that of the MCI (a) within a limited time frame, (b) in the absence of full data, and (c) taking into account carry-over and interaction effects. We illustrated the approach with an MCI for cancer survivors.Results: The approach starts with analyzing the costs of the MCI. Given a specific willingness-To-pay-value, it is analyzed how much effectiveness the MCI would need to generate to be considered cost-effective, and if this is likely to be attained. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of the single interventions relative to the potential of the MCI for being cost-effective can be compared.Conclusions: A systematic approach using headroom analysis was developed for estimating whether an MCI is likely to be more cost effective than one (or more) of its single interventions.

KW - Cost-effectiveness

KW - Methodology

KW - Multicomponent

KW - Multidimensional

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85039939560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0266462317000721

DO - 10.1017/S0266462317000721

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85039939560

VL - 33

SP - 444

EP - 453

JO - International journal of technology assessment in health care

JF - International journal of technology assessment in health care

SN - 0266-4623

IS - 4

ER -