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, Catherine M Pichardo, Donald L Patrick, Scott D Ramsey, Sonia Bishop, Shirley A A Beresford, 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.