Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18263561/ below:

Value of patient time invested in the colonoscopy screening process: time requirements for colonoscopy study

Affiliations

• ¹ Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. daniel_jonas@med.unc.edu

• PMID: 18263561
• DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309643

Item in Clipboard

Daniel E Jonas et al. Med Decis Making. 2008 Jan-Feb.

• ¹ Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. daniel_jonas@med.unc.edu

• PMID: 18263561
• DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309643

Item in Clipboard

Purpose: Previous cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening have not considered the value of patient time despite consensus recommendations to do so. The authors sought to estimate the amount and value of patient time required for screening colonoscopy.

Methods: Patients who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were recruited from a university endoscopy center. Participants completed a time diary for the screening colonoscopy process, including time spent in preparation, travel, waiting, colonoscopy, and recovery. The authors defined several time intervals and estimated their value. The primary time interval of interest, called occupied time, included preparation, travel, waiting, the colonoscopy procedure, and on-site recovery. Time was valued at the 2005 average wage rate. The authors performed sensitivity analyses to test other time intervals and wage rates. They then incorporated patient time costs into a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening to examine their impact.

Results: One hundred ten subjects completed the study. The sample was 57% female, 85% Caucasian, and 90% insured (40% Medicare, 4% Medicaid). The mean occupied time was 23.2 hours, worth $432 at the average wage rate. The authors estimate that including patient time costs in cost-effectiveness analysis would increase the cost per life-year saved with screening colonoscopy by 68%, from $13,100 to $22,000. Sensitivity analyses showed that the increase could range from 17% to 224% depending on the time interval valued.

Conclusions: Patient time constitutes an important cost in colonoscopy screening and should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Patient time requirements for screening colonoscopy.

  Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS, Chou J, Pignone M. Jonas DE, et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Nov;102(11):2401-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01387.x. Epub 2007 Jun 29. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007. PMID: 17608779

• Nonmedical costs of colorectal cancer screening with the fecal occult blood test and colonoscopy.

  Heitman SJ, Au F, Manns BJ, McGregor SE, Hilsden RJ. Heitman SJ, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Aug;6(8):912-917.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.03.006. Epub 2008 Jun 5. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008. PMID: 18534918

• A decision-analytic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening programs.

  Ramsey SD, Wilschut J, Boer R, van Ballegooijen M. Ramsey SD, et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Aug;105(8):1861-9. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2010.185. Epub 2010 May 11. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010. PMID: 20461066

• Screening of colorectal cancer.

  Winawer SJ. Winawer SJ. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2005 Oct;14(4):699-722. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2005.05.009. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2005. PMID: 16226687 Review.

• Colorectal cancer screening: health impact and cost effectiveness.

  Maciosek MV, Solberg LI, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Goodman MJ. Maciosek MV, et al. Am J Prev Med. 2006 Jul;31(1):80-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.009. Am J Prev Med. 2006. PMID: 16777546 Review.

• ACA-mandated elimination of cost sharing for preventive screening has had limited early impact.

  Mehta SJ, Polsky D, Zhu J, Lewis JD, Kolstad JT, Loewenstein G, Volpp KG. Mehta SJ, et al. Am J Manag Care. 2015 Jul;21(7):511-7. Am J Manag Care. 2015. PMID: 26247741 Free PMC article.

• Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science.

  O'Leary MC, Hassmiller Lich K, Frerichs L, Leeman J, Reuland DS, Wheeler SB. O'Leary MC, et al. Implement Sci. 2022 Apr 15;17(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01192-w. Implement Sci. 2022. PMID: 35428260 Free PMC article.

• Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK): An innovative community supported agriculture intervention to prevent childhood obesity in low-income families and strengthen local agricultural economies.

  Seguin RA, Morgan EH, Hanson KL, Ammerman AS, Jilcott Pitts SB, Kolodinsky J, Sitaker M, Becot FA, Connor LM, Garner JA, McGuirt JT. Seguin RA, et al. BMC Public Health. 2017 Apr 8;17(1):306. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4202-2. BMC Public Health. 2017. PMID: 28390403 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

• Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved.

  Gupta S, Sussman DA, Doubeni CA, Anderson DS, Day L, Deshpande AR, Elmunzer BJ, Laiyemo AO, Mendez J, Somsouk M, Allison J, Bhuket T, Geng Z, Green BB, Itzkowitz SH, Martinez ME. Gupta S, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Apr;106(4):dju032. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju032. Epub 2014 Mar 28. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014. PMID: 24681602 Free PMC article. Review.

• Opportunity costs of ambulatory medical care in the United States.

  Ray KN, Chari AV, Engberg J, Bertolet M, Mehrotra A. Ray KN, et al. Am J Manag Care. 2015 Aug;21(8):567-74. Am J Manag Care. 2015. PMID: 26295356 Free PMC article.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3