Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Feb;15(1):77-86.
doi: 10.1007/s11764-020-00912-9. Epub 2020 Jul 12.

Cost-utility of an eHealth application 'Oncokompas' that supports cancer survivors in self-management: results of a randomised controlled trial

A van der Hout  1   2 , F Jansen  1   2   3 , C F van Uden-Kraan  1   2 , V M Coupé  4 , K Holtmaat  1   2   3 , G A Nieuwenhuijzen  5 , J A Hardillo  6 , R J Baatenburg de Jong  6 , N L Tiren-Verbeet  7 , D W Sommeijer  8   9 , K de Heer  8   10 , C G Schaar  11 , R J E Sedee  12 , K Bosscha  13 , M W M van den Brekel  14 , J F Petersen  14 , M Westerman  15 , J Honings  16 , R P Takes  16 , I Houtenbos  17 , W T van den Broek  18 , R de Bree  19 , P Jansen  20 , S E J Eerenstein  2   3 , C R Leemans  3 , J M Zijlstra  2   21 , P Cuijpers  1 , L V van de Poll-Franse  22   23   24 , I M Verdonck-de Leeuw  25   26   27
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost-utility of an eHealth application 'Oncokompas' that supports cancer survivors in self-management: results of a randomised controlled trial

A van der Hout et al. J Cancer Surviv. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Purpose: The eHealth self-management application 'Oncokompas' was developed to support cancer survivors in monitoring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and obtaining personalized feedback and options for supportive care. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility of Oncokompas compared with care as usual (CAU) among cancer survivors.

Methods: Survivors were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Direct (non-)medical, indirect non-medical costs, and HRQOL were measured at 3- and 6-month follow-up, using iMTA Medical Consumption and Productivity Costs and the EuroQol-5D questionnaires. Mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared between both groups.

Results: In total, 625 survivors were randomized into intervention (n = 320) or control group (n = 305). Base case analysis showed that incremental costs from a societal perspective were - €163 (95% CI, - 665 to 326), and incremental QALYs were 0.0017 (95% CI, - 0.0121 to 0.0155) in the intervention group compared with those in the control group. The probability that, compared with CAU, Oncokompas is more effective was 60%, less costly 73%, and both more effective and less costly 47%. Sensitivity analyses showed that incremental costs vary between - €40 and €69, and incremental QALYs vary between - 0.0023 and - 0.0057.

Conclusion: Oncokompas is likely to be equally effective on utilities, and not more expensive than CAU, and will therefore contribute to sustainable cancer survivorship care in a (cost-)effective manner.

Implications for cancer survivors: Oncokompas seems to improve HRQOL and reduces the burden of several tumour-specific symptoms, while costs from a societal perspective are similar to CAU.

Keywords: Cancer survivorship; Cost-utility; Quality of life; Self-management; Supportive care; eHealth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

IMV-dL has received grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding), Pink Ribbon, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), the SAG Foundation–Zilveren Kruis Health Care Assurance Company, Danone Ecofund–Nutricia, Red-kite (distributor of eHealth tools), and Bristol-Myers Squibb, during the conduct of this study. CRL has received personal fees for global advisory board participation from MSD, during the conduct of this study. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cost-utility plane of the base case analysis. QALYs, quality-adjusted life years; NE, north-east; SE, south-east; SW, south-west; NW, north-west quadrant. The percentages indicate the percentage of bootstrap replications in a certain quadrant
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Mayer DK, Alfano CM. Personalized Risk-Stratified Cancer Follow-Up Care: Its Potential for Healthier Survivors, Happier Clinicians, and Lower Costs. J Natl Cancer Inst. Narnia. 2019:442–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lagergren P, Schandl A, Aaronson NK, Adami HO, de Lorenzo F, Denis L, et al. Cancer survivorship: an integral part of Europe’s research agenda. Mol Oncol. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2019:624–35. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Warrington L, Absolom K, Conner M, Kellar I, Clayton B, Ayres M, et al. Electronic systems for patients to report and manage side effects of cancer treatment: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e10875. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Howell D, Harth T, Brown J, Bennett C, Boyko S. Self-management education interventions for patients with cancer: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2017:1323–55. - PubMed
    1. Fridriksdottir N, Gunnarsdottir S, Zoëga S, Ingadottir B, Hafsteinsdottir EJG. Effects of web-based interventions on cancer patients’ symptoms: review of randomized trials. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:337–351. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3882-6. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types