Search

A lack of guidance on economic evaluations for oral cancer screening programs forms a challenge for policymakers and researchers to fill the knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. This systematic review thus aims to compare the outcomes and design of such evaluations. A search for economic evaluations of oral cancer screening was performed on Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, health technology assessment databases, and EBSCO Open Dissertations. The quality of studies was appraised using QHES and the Philips Checklist. Data abstraction was based on reported outcomes and study design characteristics. Of the 362 studies identified, 28 were evaluated for eligibility. The final six studies reviewed consisted of modeling approaches (n = 4), a randomized controlled trial (n = 1), and a retrospective observational study (n = 1). Screening initiatives were mostly shown to be cost-effective compared to non-screening. However, inter-study comparisons remained ambiguous due to large variations. The observational and randomized controlled trials provided considerably accurate evidence of implementation costs and outcomes. Modeling approaches, conversely, appeared more feasible for the estimation of long-term consequences and the exploration of strategy options. The current evidence of the cost-effectiveness of oral cancer screening remains heterogeneous and inadequate to support its institutionalization. Nevertheless, evaluations incorporating modeling methods may provide a practical and robust solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One major challenge in prioritizing health care using cost-effectiveness (CE) information is when alternatives are more expensive but more effective than existing technology. In such a situation, an external criterion in the form of a CE threshold that reflects the willingness to pay (WTP) per quality-adjusted life-year is necessary.Objectives: To determine a CE threshold for health care interventions in Malaysia.Methods: A cross-sectional, contingent valuation study was conducted using a stratified multistage cluster random sampling technique in four states in Malaysia. One thousand thirteen respondents were interviewed in person for their socioeconomic background, quality of life, and WTP for a hypothetical scenario.Results: The CE thresholds established using the nonparametric Turnbull method ranged from MYR12,810 to MYR22,840 (~US $4,000-US $7,000), whereas those estimated with the parametric interval regression model were between MYR19,929 and MYR28,470 (~US $6,200-US $8,900). Key factors that affected the CE thresholds were education level, estimated monthly household income, and the description of health state scenarios.Conclusions: These findings suggest that there is no single WTP value for a quality-adjusted life-year. The CE threshold estimated for Malaysia was found to be lower than the threshold value recommended by the World Health Organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Respiratory Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (RMTAC) is an initiative by the Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia to improve patients' medication adherence, as an adjunct to the usual physician care (UC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combined strategy of RMTAC and UC (RMTAC + UC) vs. UC alone in asthma patients, from the MOH Malaysia perspective. Methods: A lifetime horizon dynamic adherence Markov model with monthly cycle was developed, for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and hospitalization averted outcomes. Transition probabilities of composite asthma control and medication adherence, utilities, costs, and mortality rates due to all causes were measured from local data sources. Effectiveness, exacerbation rates, and asthma mortality rates were taken from non-local data sources. One-way sensitivity analysis (SA) was conducted for assessing parameter uncertainties, whereas probabilistic SA (PSA) was conducted on a different set of utilities and effectiveness data. Costs were adjusted to 2014 US dollars ($). Both costs and benefits were discounted at a 3% rate annually. Results: RMTAC + UC was found to be a dominant alternative compared to UC alone; $− 13,639.40 ($− 109,556.90 to $104,445.54) per QALY gained and $− 428.93 ($− 521.27 to ($− 328.69)) per hospitalization averted. These results were found to be robust against changes in all parameters except utilities in the one-way SA, and for both scenarios in PSA. Conclusions: RMTAC + UC is more effective and yet cheaper than UC alone, from the MOH perspective. For the benefit of both MOH and patients, RMTAC is thus recommended to be remained, and expanded to more healthcare settings where possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]