ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Cost-Effectiveness of the STEPS Work Participation Program Compared to Usual Care, for Cancer Survivors: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. 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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMany people diagnosed with cancer are of working age and experience challenges returning to and retaining-paid work. Existing interventions to support return to work have shown mixed effectiveness, and their cost-effectiveness is often unknown. The STEPS work participation program, based on the Stages of Change, aims to support employed cancer survivors in work resumption and retention. This study evaluated its cost-effectiveness compared to usual care.
methodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month multi-center randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Employed cancer survivors were randomized to STEPS (n = 123) or usual care (n = 116). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Costs were assessed from a societal perspective. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, were conducted using seemingly unrelated regression adjusted for baseline utility and costs, with uncertainty assessed using bootstrapping.
resultsParticipants in the STEPS group accrued marginally more QALYs than those receiving usual care (adjusted mean difference: 0.004; 95%CI: - 0.018 to 0.025), but this difference was neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant. Total societal costs were higher in the STEPS group than in usual care, with an adjusted mean difference of €2933 (95%CI: - €2735 to €8600). The probability of STEPS being cost-effective compared to usual care was 0.17 at a willingness-to-pay of €20,000/QALY, increasing only to 0.21 at €80,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.
conclusionThe STEPS program cannot be considered cost-effective compared to usual care and is therefore not recommended for implementation in its current form.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474940What 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.