PRM97 – Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of multicomponent rehabilitation guidelines

Janne Mewes, Lotte Maria Gertruda Steuten, Maarten Joost IJzerman, Willem H. van Harten

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractAcademic

22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: The Dutch guideline for cancer rehabilitation recommends patients to engage in multicomponent interventions, i.e. several single interventions combined into a rehabilitation programme. To perform a health economic evaluation of this guideline, data on the cost-effectiveness of these multicomponent interventions is required. However, to date, the interventions´ (cost-)effectiveness is almost exclusively assessed for the single interventions, rather than for the multicomponent intervention, which challenges the health economic analysis of the multicomponent interventions. The objective of this study was to identify or develop a method that allows to deduct the cost-effectiveness of multicomponent interventions from published data of the single interventions.

Methods: We searched the literature for articles offering a method or ideas for the development of a method for assessing the cost-effectiveness of multicomponent interventions on the basis of data on the single interventions. The cost-effectiveness gap analysis method, which can be used for assessing the maximum cost of an intervention given a certain willingness-to-pay, was identified as suitable and was further developed to allow assessing if a multidimensional programmes is cost-effective, based on the (cost-)effectiveness data of the single interventions.

Results: Cost-effectiveness gap analysis was identified in the literature as being a suitable method, with further refinement. We suggested to first calculate the costs of all interventions. Given the effectiveness of one intervention it is then possible to estimate how much additional effectiveness a second (or any subsequent) intervention would have to provide so that the multicomponent intervention remains cost-effective, given a range of ceiling ratios. Recommendations for methods for estimating the additional effect of subsequent interventions were deducted from the literature identified.

Conclusions: We suggest estimating the cost-effectiveness of the combined interventions as recommended in clinical guidelines by performing a refined cost-effectiveness gap analysis method
Original languageEnglish
Article numberPA30
JournalValue in health
Volume16
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013
EventISPOR 18th Annual International Meeting 2013 - New Orleans, United States
Duration: 18 May 201322 May 2013
Conference number: 18

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'PRM97 – Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of multicomponent rehabilitation guidelines'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this