hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A health economic evaluation of follow-up after breast cancer surgery: results of an rct study
Kristianstad University, School of Health and Society.
Department of Oncology, Örebro University Hospital.
Oncological Center, West Health Care Region, University Hospital Gothenburg.
Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Surgery, Uppsala University.
2009 (English)In: Acta Oncologica, ISSN 0284-186X, E-ISSN 1651-226X, Vol. 48, no 1, p. 99-104Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction. Breast cancer follow-up programmes consume large resources and despite the indications that several alternative approaches could be used effectively, there is no coherent discussion about costs and/or cost-effectiveness of follow-up programmes. Patient and methods. In a prospective trial there were 264 breast cancer patients, stage I and II, randomised to two different follow-up programmes- PG (physician group) and NG (nurse group). The trial period was 5 years. The women in the two intervention groups did not differ in anxiety and depression, their satisfaction with care, their experienced accessibility to the medical centre or their medical outcome as measured by recurrence or death. The analyses were done from different lists representing costs at three hospitals in Sweden according to the principles of a cost minimization study. Results: The cost per person year of follow-up differed between the groups, with (sic)630 per person year in PG compared to (sic)495 per person year in NG. Thus, specialist nurse intervention with check-ups on demand was 20% less expensive than routine follow-up visits to the physician. The main difference in cost between the groups was explained by the numbers of visits to the physician in the respective study arms. There were 21% more primary contacts in PG than NG. Discussion. The difference in cost per year and patient by study arm is modest, but transforms to nearly (sic)900 per patient and 5-year period, offering a substantial opportunity for reallocating resources since breast cancer is the most prevalent tumour worldwide.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 48, no 1, p. 99-104
Keywords [en]
Neoplasams, breast, costs, nurse-led
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-5717DOI: 10.1080/02841860802314712ISI: 000261847600013PubMedID: 18766474ISBN: 0284-186X (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-5717DiVA, id: diva2:286682
Available from: 2010-01-15 Created: 2010-01-15 Last updated: 2018-01-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed
By organisation
School of Health and Society
In the same journal
Acta Oncologica
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 45 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf