The cost-effectiveness core will provide the experience and technical resources to assess cost-effectiveness of the interventions studied or proposed in the Program Project. The CE core will apply the principles of cost-effectiveness analysis, decision modeling, and utility assessment to evaluate the policy implications of changing health beliefs. By providing a unifying paradigm, the CE core will encourage synergies between the component projects by encouraging the adoption of similar data elements, theoretical models, and approaches to design and analysis. The approach to CE analysis includes 6 steps: (1) define the intervention; (2) identify relevant costs; (3) identify relevant effectiveness parameters; (4) measure costs; (5) measure effectiveness; and (6) account for uncertainties. Because trials do not consider all relevant patient populations and do not follow subjects throughout the entire time period of interest, sufficiently comprehensive CE analyses often require extrapolation of future costs and benefits. Decision analysis will be used to make these extrapolations. Decision analysis will also be used to provide normative models; for example, in order to compare current practices regarding estrogen replacement therapy with optimal practices. Utility assessment will provide quantitative representations of patient preferences for health-related outcomes and interventions, as inputs into the calculation of quality-adjusted life years. Members of the CE core have substantial experience in CE analysis, decision modeling, and utility assessment. In addition, the group has practical experience in applying these methodologies in the context of complex multi-disciplinary studies.

Agency
National Institute of Health (NIH)
Institute
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Type
Research Program Projects (P01)
Project #
1P01CA072099-01
Application #
5209589
Study Section
Project Start
Project End
Budget Start
Budget End
Support Year
1
Fiscal Year
1996
Total Cost
Indirect Cost
Bosworth, Hayden B; Bastian, Lori A; Grambow, Steven C et al. (2005) Initiation and discontinuation of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms: results from a community sample. J Behav Med 28:105-14
Bepler, Gerold; Zheng, Zhong; Gautam, Ashish et al. (2005) Ribonucleotide reductase M1 gene promoter activity, polymorphisms, population frequencies, and clinical relevance. Lung Cancer 47:183-92
Porter, Laura S; Keefe, Francis J; Lipkus, Isaac et al. (2005) Ambivalence over emotional expression in patients with gastrointestinal cancer and their caregivers: associations with patient pain and quality of life. Pain 117:340-8
Arredondo, Elva M; Pollak, Kathryn I; Costanzo, Philip et al. (2003) Primary care residents' characteristics and motives for providing differential medical treatment of cervical cancer screening. J Natl Med Assoc 95:576-84
Yarnall, Kimberly S H; Pollak, Kathryn I; Ostbye, Truls et al. (2003) Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health 93:635-41
Bosworth, Hayden B; Bastian, Lori A; Rimer, Barbara K et al. (2003) Coping styles and personality domains related to menopausal stress. Womens Health Issues 13:32-8
Dominick, Kelli L; Skinner, Celette Sugg; Bastian, Lori A et al. (2003) Provider characteristics and mammography recommendation among women in their 40s and 50s. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 12:61-71
Keefe, Francis J; Ahles, Tim A; Porter, Laura S et al. (2003) The self-efficacy of family caregivers for helping cancer patients manage pain at end-of-life. Pain 103:157-62
Meissner, Helen I; Rimer, Barbara K; Davis, William W et al. (2003) Another round in the mammography controversy. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 12:261-76
Keefe, Francis J; Lipkus, Isaac; Lefebvre, John C et al. (2003) The social context of gastrointestinal cancer pain: a preliminary study examining the relation of patient pain catastrophizing to patient perceptions of social support and caregiver stress and negative responses. Pain 103:151-6

Showing the most recent 10 out of 47 publications