Cost-utility analysis of meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors

The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Cost-utility analysis typically relies on preference-based measures (PBMs). While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs can capture aspects relevant for certain patient populations. Here the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific PBM based on the QLQ-C30, is validated using Dutch trial data with the EQ-5D-3L as a generic comparator measure.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed data from four Dutch randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comprising the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-5D-3L. Respective Dutch value sets were applied. Correlations between the instruments were calculated for domains and index scores. Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlations (ICC) displayed agreement between the measures. Independent and paired t-tests, effect sizes and relative validity indices were used to determine the instruments' performance in detecting clinically known-group differences and health changes over time.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 602 cancer patients from four different trials. In overall, the EORTC QLU-C10D showed good relative validity with the EQ-5D-3L as a comparator (correlations of index scores r = 0.53-0.75, ICCs 0.686-0.808, conceptually similar domains showed higher correlations than dissimilar domains). Most importantly, it detected 63% of expected clinical group differences and 50% of changes over time in patients undergoing treatment. Both instruments showed poor performance in survivors. Detection rate and measurement efficiency were clearly higher for the QLU-C10D than for the EQ-5D-3L.

CONCLUSIONS

The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D showed good comparative validity in patients undergoing treatment. Our results underline the benefit that can be achieved by using a cancer-specific PBM for generating health utilities for cancer patients from a measurement perspective.

Cost comparison of in-person and telehealth modalities for a suicide safety planning group intervention: interim results from the "Project Life Force" randomized clinical trial

Suicide prevention is a clinical priority for the US Veterans Health Administration. Evidence-based interventions, including developing a suicide safety plan, are recommended practices and are becoming more widespread. Adaptations to further augment safety planning include a manualized group intervention (Project Life Force, PLF) that combines safety planning with the teaching of skills to maximize use of the plan. A multi-year randomized controlled trial to test efficacy of PLF compared to treatment as usual is currently in progress. However, approximately a year into the study, in-person groups were converted to telehealth groups due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compares the per-veteran cost of PLF when delivered in-person versus by telehealth using preliminary trial data from the first 2.5 years of the trial. Cost to deliver PLF was obtained from the Veterans Health Administration's Managerial Cost Accounting data, which relies on activity-based costing. We found no significant differences in the average number of sessions or average group size between in-person and telehealth. However, the cost per group session was lower for the telehealth modality and this led to significant overall per-veteran savings. While efficacy data comparing from the two arms is still underway and we await the ongoing RCT results, our interim cost analysis highlights potential savings with the telehealth modality.

The effects of virtual logotherapy on health-promoting lifestyle among single-parent adolescent girls during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a randomized clinical trial

Single-parent adolescents are vulnerable individuals and it is necessary to improve their health, particularly during epidemics. This study aimed to investigate the effects of virtual logotherapy (VL) on health-promoting lifestyle (HPL) among single-parent adolescent girls during the COVID-19 pandemic. This single-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on 88 single-parent adolescent girls recruited from the support organization for vulnerable individuals in Tehran, Iran. They were randomly allocated to a control and an intervention group through block randomization. Participants in the intervention group received VL in three-five person groups in 90 min biweekly sessions. The Adolescent Health Promotion Short-Form was used to assess HPL. Data were analyzed using the SPSS software (v. 26.0) and through the independent-sample t, Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests. There was no significant difference between the intervention and the control groups respecting the pretest mean score of HPL (73.58±16.74 vs. 72.80±9.30; P=0.085). However, the posttest mean score of HPL in the intervention group (82 with an interquartile range of 78-90) was significantly more than the control group (71.50 with an interquartile range of 63.25-84.50) (P=0.001). Moreover, after adjusting the effects of the significant between-group differences respecting pretest mean scores, the pretest-posttest differences of the mean scores of HPL and all its dimensions in the intervention group were significantly more than the control group (P<0.05). VL is effective in significantly improving HPL among single-parent adolescent girls. Healthcare authorities are recommended to use VL for health promotion among single-parent adolescents.Trial registrationThis research was registered (17/05/2020) in the www.thaiclinicaltrials.org with registration number: TCTR20200517001.

A systematic review of economic analyses of psychological interventions and therapies in health-related settings

Background

This review aims to synthesise evidence on the economic impact of psychological interventions and therapies when applied to a broad range of physical health conditions.

Methods

The following bibliographic databases were searched for relevant articles: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ebsco). As this review was intended to update an earlier review, the date range for the search was restricted to between January 2012 and September 2018. Reference lists from the review articles were also searched for relevant articles. Study quality was evaluated using the Scottish Intercollegiate Network Guidelines (SIGN) appraisal checklists for both economic studies and Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). When the economic analyses did not provide sufficient detail for quality evaluation, the original RCT papers were sought and these were also evaluated. Half of the papers were quality rated by a second author. Initial agreement was high and all disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Results

This yielded 1408 unique articles, reduced to 134 following screening of the title and abstract. The full texts of the remaining articles were reviewed by at least one team member and all exclusions were discussed and agreed by the team. This left 46 original research articles, alongside five systematic reviews. Fifty-seven per cent of the articles were deemed to be of high quality, with the remainder of acceptable quality. Fifteen different medical conditions were covered, with chronic pain (10 articles) and cancer (9 articles) being the two most investigated health conditions. Three quarters of the papers reviewed showed evidence for the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions in physical health, with the clearest evidence being in the field of chronic pain and cancer.

Conclusions

This paper provides a comprehensive integration of the research on the cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies in physical health. Whilst the evidence for cost-effectiveness in chronic pain and cancer is encouraging, some health conditions require further study. Clearly, as the primary research is international, and was therefore conducted across varying health care systems, caution must be exercised when applying the results to counties outside of those covered. Despite this, the results are of potential relevance to service providers and funders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08158-0.

Economic Evaluation of Long-Term Survivorship Care for Cancer Patients in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review for Decision-Makers

Long-term cancer survivorship care is a crucial component of an efficient healthcare system. For numerous reasons, there has been an increase in the number of cancer survivors; therefore, healthcare decision-makers are tasked with balancing a finite budget with a strong demand for services. Decision-makers require clear and pragmatic interpretation of results to inform resource allocation decisions. For these reasons, the impact and importance of economic evidence are increasing. The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of long-term cancer survivorship care in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and to assess the usefulness of economic evidence for decision-makers. A systematic review of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and others, was conducted. The reporting quality of the included studies was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Each included study’s usefulness for decision-makers was assessed using an adapted version of a previously published approach. Overall, 3597 studies were screened, and of the 235 studies assessed for eligibility, 34 satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria. We found that the majority of the included studies had limited value for informing healthcare decision-making and conclude that this represents an ongoing issue in the field. We recommend that authors explicitly include a policy statement as part of their presentation of results.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of telephone-based cognitive behaviour therapy compared to treatment as usual CBT for cancer patients: Evidence from a small, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

A previous equivalence randomised trial indicated that Telephone-based Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (T-CBT) was not inferior to Treatment as Usual CBT (TAU-CBT) delivered face to face in terms of psychological benefit with both groups showing post-therapy improvements compared to pre-therapy baseline. The aim here is to clarify costs and benefits through an economic evaluation of the two therapy models.

METHOD

The cost-effectiveness analysis (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was derived from a single-centre (UK-based), two-arm randomised control trial. Data from 78 patients were available for the main analysis, which includes both an NHS cost perspective and a societal perspective which includes the cost of time off work and any additional private care. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken, which included patients only completing the four core therapy sessions (46 patients) and considering only patients taking both core and the additional therapy sessions which were optional (32 patients).

RESULTS

The base-case analysis, adopting an NHS perspective, showed that T-CBT was associated with an incremental cost of £50 (95% CI: -£759 to £989) and a 0.03 QALY (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.03) decrement per patient when compared to TAU-CBT. The analysis adopting a societal perspective yielded similar results, with T-CBT providing an incremental cost of £171 (95% CI: -£769 to £1112) and a 0.03 QALY (95% CI: -0.08 to 0.03) decrement per patient in comparison to TAU-CBT. The first sensitivity analysis, considering patients only taking the core therapy sessions, showed that T-CBT provided an incremental cost of £100 (95% CI: -£945 to £1247) and yielded a decrement of 0.01 QALY (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01) per patient compared to TAU-CBT. The second sensitivity analysis, which focused solely on patients who also underwent optional sessions, showed that T-CBT was associated with an incremental cost of £17 (95% CI: -£1307 to £1454) and a 0.04 QALY (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.03) decrement per patient when compared to TAU-CBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this single trial, T-CBT is not cost-effective as a therapy option for cancer patients with high psychological needs when compared to TAU-CBT.

Effects of psychosocial support interventions on survival in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings: A meta-analysis of 106 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Hospitals, clinics, and health organizations have provided psychosocial support interventions for medical patients to supplement curative care. Prior reviews of interventions augmenting psychosocial support in medical settings have reported mixed outcomes. This meta-analysis addresses the questions of how effective are psychosocial support interventions in improving patient survival and which potential moderating features are associated with greater effectiveness.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial support interventions in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings reporting survival data, including studies reporting disease-related or all-cause mortality. Literature searches included studies reported January 1980 through October 2020 accessed from Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Alt HealthWatch, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, and Google Scholar databases. At least 2 reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality, with at least 2 independent reviewers also extracting data and assessing study quality. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) data were analyzed separately using random effects weighted models. Of 42,054 studies searched, 106 RCTs including 40,280 patients met inclusion criteria. Patient average age was 57.2 years, with 52% females and 48% males; 42% had cardiovascular disease (CVD), 36% had cancer, and 22% had other conditions. Across 87 RCTs reporting data for discrete time periods, the average was OR = 1.20 (95% CI = 1.09 to 1.31, p < 0.001), indicating a 20% increased likelihood of survival among patients receiving psychosocial support compared to control groups receiving standard medical care. Among those studies, psychosocial interventions explicitly promoting health behaviors yielded improved likelihood of survival, whereas interventions without that primary focus did not. Across 22 RCTs reporting survival time, the average was HR = 1.29 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.49, p < 0.001), indicating a 29% increased probability of survival over time among intervention recipients compared to controls. Among those studies, meta-regressions identified 3 moderating variables: control group type, patient disease severity, and risk of research bias. Studies in which control groups received health information/classes in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) averaged weaker effects than those in which control groups received only TAU. Studies with patients having relatively greater disease severity tended to yield smaller gains in survival time relative to control groups. In one of 3 analyses, studies with higher risk of research bias tended to report better outcomes. The main limitation of the data is that interventions very rarely blinded personnel and participants to study arm, such that expectations for improvement were not controlled.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, OR data indicated that psychosocial behavioral support interventions promoting patient motivation/coping to engage in health behaviors improved patient survival, but interventions focusing primarily on patients' social or emotional outcomes did not prolong life. HR data indicated that psychosocial interventions, predominantly focused on social or emotional outcomes, improved survival but yielded similar effects to health information/classes and were less effective among patients with apparently greater disease severity. Risk of research bias remains a plausible threat to data interpretation.

Long-term efficacy of meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors: 2-Year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors (MCGP-CS) is an effective intervention to improve personal meaning, psychological well-being, and depressive symptoms until 6 months after the intervention. In this study, the long-term effects of MCGP-CS (i.e., at 1- and 2-year follow-up) on meaning, psychological well-being and posttraumatic growth were assessed, in comparison to supportive group psychotherapy (SGP) and care as usual (CAU).

METHODS

Cancer survivors (n = 170) were randomized into MCGP-CS, SGP, or CAU. Assessments were scheduled at baseline, 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postintervention. Outcome measures were the Personal Meaning Profile, Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB), the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, and their subscales. Linear mixed models (LMM) were used and results were both reported on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, as well as for intervention completers only.

RESULTS

LMM and post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction revealed that MCGP-CS participants reported more improvement on positive relations (subscale of SPWB) than CAU participants of 2-year postintervention (ITT analysis, Cohen's d = .82). Completers also reported more personal growth (subscale of SPWB) after MCGP-CS than after SGP 1-year postintervention (Cohen's d = .94). No long-term effects were found on the other outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In the 2 years after MCGP-CS, the short-term significant effects on personal meaning and most positive effects related to psychological well-being faded. However, MCGP-CS had a long-term positive effect on positive relations with others and on survivors' sense of personal growth.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3571.