ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2021
Is it too expensive to fight cancer? Analysis of incremental costs and benefits of the Croatian National Plan Against Cancer.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Can the EU Beating Cancer Plan Help in Tackling Lung Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Breast Cancer and Melanoma?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This cost-effectiveness study analyses the expected impacts of activities proposed by the Croatian National Plan Against Cancer (NPAC) on cancer incidence and survival rates, as related to their respective costs. We evaluated the impact of the NPAC on two main outcomes, namely, reduced incidence and the improved survival of cancer patients, expressed as life years gained (LYGs), which enabled the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in the form of cost per LYG. In the analysis of costs, we considered both the direct costs of NPAC activities as well as the wider indirect societal costs of cancer, thus permitting the calculation of the ICER both from the narrower national health insurer's perspective (accounting only for the direct costs) and the wider societal perspective (accounting both for the direct and indirect costs). We estimated that on average, for all patients benefiting from the implementation of the NPAC in Croatia, an additional LYG would be yielded at the additional cost of €1.021 (societal perspective). The NPAC can, for some sites, even be considered a dominant intervention due to the negative cost/LYG ratio, meaning that it generates additional LYGs while at the same time, reducing total societal costs. Taking a narrower health insurer's perspective (i.e., accounting only for the direct costs), the NPAC produces an additional LYG at an additional cost of €1.408. Both cost per LYG estimates can be considered cost-effective investment options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.