RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to apply a new methodology (population-level cost-effectiveness analysis) to determine the value of implementing an evidence-based practice in routine care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data are from sequentially conducted studies: a randomized controlled trial and an implementation trial of collaborative care for depression. Both trials were conducted in the same practice setting and population (primary care patients prescribed antidepressants). STUDY DESIGN: The study combined results from a randomized controlled trial and a pre-post-quasi-experimental implementation trial. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The randomized controlled trial collected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from survey and medication possession ratios (MPRs) from administrative data. The implementation trial collected MPRs and intervention costs from administrative data and implementation costs from survey. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In the randomized controlled trial, MPRs were significantly correlated with QALYs (p = .03). In the implementation trial, patients at implementation sites had significantly higher MPRs (p = .01) than patients at control sites, and by extrapolation higher QALYs (0.00188). Total costs (implementation, intervention) were nonsignificantly higher ($63.76) at implementation sites. The incremental population-level cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,905.92/QALY (bootstrap interquartile range -$45,343.10/QALY to $99,260.90/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The methodology was feasible to operationalize and gave reasonable estimates of implementation value.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências/economia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Antidepressivos/uso terapêutico , Depressão/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We examined the impact of patient adherence and screening test performance on the cost-effectiveness of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and Pap smears when used with colposcopy for diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using computer modeling. The primary outcome was cancer prevalence in the 10 years after screening. Three hypothetical populations of 35-year-old women were compared: never-screened women, women screened with VIA, and women screened with Pap smears. We used community-based data from our screening program in Honduras to estimate screening test sensitivity and specificity, adherence to follow-up, and costs of screening and colposcopy services. Published data were used to model disease outcomes. RESULTS: VIA was more sensitive than Pap smears (70% vs. 4%), less expensive (U.S. 0.23 dollars vs. 3.17 dollars), and the 2-vist VIA system had a higher rate of adherence to follow-up than the 3-visit Pap smear system (84% vs. 38%). VIA had a higher false-positive rate than Pap smears resulting in higher colposcopy referral rates, but more dysplasia was detected and treated. Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that screening with VIA would cost U.S. 3,198 dollars per cancer case avoided and reduce cancer cases by 42%, versus U.S. 36,802 dollars and 2% for Pap screening. Although Pap smear quality was low in Honduras, sensitivity analysis showed that VIA was more cost-effective than Pap smears, even when test accuracy was equivalent. CONCLUSION: In developing countries, systems barriers can limit the cost-effectiveness of Pap smears. VIA may be a cost-effective alternative for some resource-poor settings, although systems barriers, quality control, and feasibility issues must be considered.