Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25979678›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2015

A framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of patient decision aids: A case study using colorectal cancer screening.

Scott B Cantor, Tanya Rajan, Suzanne K Linder, Robert J Volk

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Potential cost-effectiveness for using patient decision aids to guide osteoporosis treatment.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016
    Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Scott B CantorDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: sbcantor@mdanderson.org.
Tanya RajanDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Suzanne K LinderDepartment of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Robert J VolkDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient decision aids are important tools for facilitating balanced, evidence-based decision making. However, the potential of decision aids to lower health care utilization and costs is uncertain; few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of decision aids that change patient behavior. Using an example of a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening, we provide a framework for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of decision aids.

methodsA decision-analytic model with two strategies (decision aid or no decision aid) was used to calculate expected costs in U.S. dollars and benefits measured in life-years saved (LYS). Data from a systematic review of ten studies about decision aid effectiveness was used to calculate the percentage increase in the number of people choosing screening instead of no screening. We then calculated the incremental cost per LYS with the use of the decision aid.

resultsThe no decision aid strategy had an expected cost of $3023 and yielded 18.19 LYS. The decision aid strategy cost $3249 and yielded 18.20 LYS. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the decision aid strategy was $36,126 per LYS. Results were sensitive to the cost of the decision aid and the percentage change in behavior caused by the decision aid.

conclusionsThis study provides proof-of-concept evidence for future studies examining the cost-effectiveness of decision aids. The results suggest that decision aids can be beneficial and cost-effective.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareUnited StatesColorectal cancerCost and cost analysisDecision makingPatient decision aidsScreening

Identifiers

PMID25979678
PMCPMC5629970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.