{"title":"Economic Evaluations of Interventions Addressing Inequalities in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Bedasa Taye Merga, Nikki McCaffrey, Suzanne Robinson, Ebisa Turi, Anita Lal","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Although substantial evidence exists on the costs and benefits of cancer care and screening programs for the general population, economic evidence of interventions addressing inequalities is less well known. This systematic review summarized economic evaluations of interventions addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care to inform decision makers on the value for money of such interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published from database inception to October 27, 2023. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were economic evaluations of interventions to improve or address inequalities in cancer care among disadvantaged population groups. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results (US dollars 2023) were summarized. Study quality was assessed by 2 authors using the Drummond checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The searches yielded 2937 records, with 30 meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. In most of the studies (n = 27, 90%), interventions were considered cost-effective in addressing inequalities in cancer care and screening among disadvantaged populations. Notably, 60% of the studies were rated as high quality, 33.3% as good, and 6.7% as fair quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review identified cost-effective strategies addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care that have the potential to be replicated in other locations. The interventions were mainly focused on screening programs, and few addressed equity gaps around risk reduction and diagnostic and treatment outcomes. This underscores the need for targeted approaches to address inequalities in under-researched priority population groups along the cancer care continuum.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Although substantial evidence exists on the costs and benefits of cancer care and screening programs for the general population, economic evidence of interventions addressing inequalities is less well known. This systematic review summarized economic evaluations of interventions addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care to inform decision makers on the value for money of such interventions.
Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published from database inception to October 27, 2023. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were economic evaluations of interventions to improve or address inequalities in cancer care among disadvantaged population groups. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results (US dollars 2023) were summarized. Study quality was assessed by 2 authors using the Drummond checklist.
Results: The searches yielded 2937 records, with 30 meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. In most of the studies (n = 27, 90%), interventions were considered cost-effective in addressing inequalities in cancer care and screening among disadvantaged populations. Notably, 60% of the studies were rated as high quality, 33.3% as good, and 6.7% as fair quality.
Conclusions: This systematic review identified cost-effective strategies addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care that have the potential to be replicated in other locations. The interventions were mainly focused on screening programs, and few addressed equity gaps around risk reduction and diagnostic and treatment outcomes. This underscores the need for targeted approaches to address inequalities in under-researched priority population groups along the cancer care continuum.
期刊介绍:
Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.