ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024
Developing a systems-focused tool for modeling lung cancer screening resource needs.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection through screening dramatically improves lung cancer survival rates, including among war Veterans, who are at heightened risk. The effectiveness of low dose computed tomography scans in lung cancer screening (LCS) prompted the Veteran's Affairs Lung Precision Oncology Program (VA LPOP) to increase screening rates. We aimed to develop an adaptive population health tool to determine adequate resource allocation for the program, with a specific focus on primary care providers, nurse navigators, and radiologists.
methodsWe developed a tool using C + + that uses inputs that represents the process of the VA LCS program in Ann Arbor, Michigan to calculate FTEs of human resource needs to screen a given population. Further, we performed a sensitivity analysis to understand how resource needs are impacted by changes in population, screening eligibility, and time allocated for the nurse navigators' tasks.
resultsUsing estimates from the VA LCS Program as demonstrative inputs, we determined that the greatest number of full-time equivalents required were for radiologists, followed by nurse navigators and then primary care providers, for a target population of 75,000. An increase in the population resulted in a linear increase of resource needs, with radiologists experiencing the greatest rate of increase, followed by nurse navigators and primary care providers. These resource requirements changed with primary care providers, nurse navigators and radiologists demonstrating the greatest increase when 1-20, 20-40 and > 40% of Veterans accepted to be screened respectively. Finally, when increasing the time allocated to check eligibility by the nurse navigator from zero to three minutes, there was a linear increase in the full-time equivalents required for the nurse navigator.
conclusionVariation of resource utilization demonstrated by our user facing tool emphasizes the importance of tailored strategies to accommodate specific population demographics and downstream work. We will continue to refine this tool by incorporating additional variability in system parameters, resource requirements following an abnormal test result, and resource distribution over time to reach steady state. While our tool is designed for a specific program in one center, it has wider applicability to other cancer screening programs.
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.