Estimating the costs and cost-effectiveness of promoting mammography screening among US-based Latinas.

Yamilé Molina, Catherine M Pichardo, Donald L Patrick, Scott D Ramsey, Sonia Bishop, Shirley A A Beresford, Gloria D Coronado
{"title":"Estimating the costs and cost-effectiveness of promoting mammography screening among US-based Latinas.","authors":"Yamilé Molina,&nbsp;Catherine M Pichardo,&nbsp;Donald L Patrick,&nbsp;Scott D Ramsey,&nbsp;Sonia Bishop,&nbsp;Shirley A A Beresford,&nbsp;Gloria D Coronado","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We characterize the costs and cost-effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW)-based intervention to promote screening mammography among US-based non-adherent Latinas.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The parent study was a randomized controlled trial for 536 Latinas aged 42-74 years old who had sought care within a safety net health center in Western Washington. Participants were block-randomized within clinic to the control arm (usual care) or intervention arm (CHW-led motivational interviewing intervention). We used the perspective of the organization implementing promotional activities to characterize costs and cost-effectiveness. Cost data were categorized as program set-up and maintenance (initial training, booster/annual training) program implementation (administrative activities, intervention delivery); and, overhead/miscellaneous expenses. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost of screening for each additional woman screened between the intervention and control arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The respective costs per participant for standard care and the intervention arm were $69.96 and $300.99. There were no study arm differences in 1-year QALYs were small among women who completed a 12-month follow-up survey (intervention= 0.8827, standard care = 0.8841). Most costs pertained to program implementation and administrative activities specifically. The incremental cost per additional woman screened was $2,595.32.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings are within the ranges of costs and cost-effectiveness for other CHW programs to promote screening mammography among underserved populations. Our strong study design and focus on non-adherent women provides important strengths to this body of work, especially give implementation and dissemination science efforts regarding CHW-based health promotion for health disparity populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health disparities research and practice","volume":"12 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8373201/pdf/nihms-1562068.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health disparities research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We characterize the costs and cost-effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW)-based intervention to promote screening mammography among US-based non-adherent Latinas.

Methods: The parent study was a randomized controlled trial for 536 Latinas aged 42-74 years old who had sought care within a safety net health center in Western Washington. Participants were block-randomized within clinic to the control arm (usual care) or intervention arm (CHW-led motivational interviewing intervention). We used the perspective of the organization implementing promotional activities to characterize costs and cost-effectiveness. Cost data were categorized as program set-up and maintenance (initial training, booster/annual training) program implementation (administrative activities, intervention delivery); and, overhead/miscellaneous expenses. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost of screening for each additional woman screened between the intervention and control arms.

Results: The respective costs per participant for standard care and the intervention arm were $69.96 and $300.99. There were no study arm differences in 1-year QALYs were small among women who completed a 12-month follow-up survey (intervention= 0.8827, standard care = 0.8841). Most costs pertained to program implementation and administrative activities specifically. The incremental cost per additional woman screened was $2,595.32.

Conclusions: Our findings are within the ranges of costs and cost-effectiveness for other CHW programs to promote screening mammography among underserved populations. Our strong study design and focus on non-adherent women provides important strengths to this body of work, especially give implementation and dissemination science efforts regarding CHW-based health promotion for health disparity populations.

估计在美国拉丁裔中促进乳房x光检查的成本和成本效益。
目的:我们描述了以社区卫生工作者(CHW)为基础的干预措施的成本和成本效益,以促进美国非依从性拉丁美洲人的乳房x光筛查。方法:父母研究是一项随机对照试验,536名42-74岁的拉丁裔人在华盛顿西部的一个安全网健康中心寻求治疗。参与者在诊所内被随机分组到对照组(常规护理)或干预组(chw领导的动机访谈干预)。我们使用实施促销活动的组织的角度来描述成本和成本效益。成本数据被分类为项目建立和维护(初始培训,加强/年度培训)项目实施(行政活动,干预交付);管理费用/杂项费用。成本效益计算为干预组和对照组之间每增加一名妇女筛查的增量成本。结果:标准治疗组和干预组的人均费用分别为69.96美元和300.99美元。在完成12个月随访调查的女性中,1年QALYs的研究组差异不大(干预= 0.8827,标准治疗= 0.8841)。大多数费用与方案实施和具体的管理活动有关。每增加一名接受筛查的妇女的增量成本为2,595.32美元。结论:我们的研究结果在其他CHW项目的成本和成本效益范围内,以促进在服务不足的人群中筛查乳房x光检查。我们强大的研究设计和对非依从性妇女的关注为本工作提供了重要的优势,特别是在健康差异人群中基于chw的健康促进方面的实施和传播科学工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信