↓ Skip to main content

Cancer care coordinators in stage III colon cancer: a cost-utility analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cancer care coordinators in stage III colon cancer: a cost-utility analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0970-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tony Blakely, Lucie Collinson, Giorgi Kvizhinadze, Nisha Nair, Rachel Foster, Elizabeth Dennett, Diana Sarfati

Abstract

There is momentum internationally to improve coordination of complex care pathways. Robust evaluations of such interventions are scarce. This paper evaluates the cost-utility of cancer care coordinators for stage III colon cancer patients, who generally require surgery followed by chemotherapy. We compared a hospital-based nurse cancer care coordinator (CCC) with 'business-as-usual' (no dedicated coordination service) in stage III colon cancer patients in New Zealand. A discrete event microsimulation model was constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs from a health system perspective. We used New Zealand data on colon cancer incidence, survival, and mortality as baseline input parameters for the model. We specified intervention input parameters using available literature and expert estimates. For example, that a CCC would improve the coverage of chemotherapy by 33 % (ranging from 9 to 65 %), reduce the time to surgery by 20 % (3 to 48 %), reduce the time to chemotherapy by 20 % (3 to 48 %), and reduce patient anxiety (reduction in disability weight of 33 %, ranging from 0 to 55 %). Much of the direct cost of a nurse CCC was balanced by savings in business-as-usual care coordination. Much of the health gain was through increased coverage of chemotherapy with a CCC (especially older patients), and reduced time to chemotherapy. Compared to 'business-as-usual', the cost per QALY of the CCC programme was $NZ 18,900 (≈ $US 15,600; 95 % UI: $NZ 13,400 to 24,600). By age, the CCC intervention was more cost-effective for colon cancer patients < 65 years ($NZ 9,400 per QALY). By ethnicity, the health gains were larger for Māori, but so too were the costs, meaning the cost-effectiveness was roughly comparable between ethnic groups. Such a nurse-led CCC intervention in New Zealand has acceptable cost-effectiveness for stage III colon cancer, meaning it probably merits funding. Each CCC programme will differ in its likely health gains and costs, making generalisation from this evaluation to other CCC interventions difficult. However, this evaluation suggests that CCC interventions that increase coverage of, and reduce time to, effective treatments may be cost-effective.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2020.
All research outputs
#7,522,616
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,751
of 7,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,423
of 264,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#61
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.