Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Many people diagnosed with cancer are of working age and experience challenges returning to and retaining—paid work. Existing interventions to support return to work have shown mixed effectiveness, and their cost-effectiveness is often unknown. The STEPS work participation program, based on the Stages of Change, aims to support employed cancer survivors in work resumption and retention. This study evaluated its cost-effectiveness compared to usual care.</p> Methods <p>An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month multi-center randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Employed cancer survivors were randomized to STEPS (<i>n</i> = 123) or usual care (<i>n</i> = 116). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Costs were assessed from a societal perspective. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, were conducted using seemingly unrelated regression adjusted for baseline utility and costs, with uncertainty assessed using bootstrapping.</p> Results <p>Participants in the STEPS group accrued marginally more QALYs than those receiving usual care (<i>adjusted</i> mean difference: 0.004; 95%CI: –&#xa0;0.018 to 0.025), but this difference was neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant. Total societal costs were higher in the STEPS group than in usual care, with an <i>adjusted</i> mean difference of €2933 (95%CI: – €2735 to €8600). The probability of STEPS being cost-effective compared to usual care was 0.17 at a willingness-to-pay of €20,000/QALY, increasing only to 0.21 at €80,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.</p> Conclusion <p>The STEPS program cannot be considered cost-effective compared to usual care and is therefore not recommended for implementation in its current form.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cost-Effectiveness of the STEPS Work Participation Program Compared to Usual Care, for Cancer Survivors: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月20日

查看全文
  • Johanna M. van Dongen,
  • Amber D. Zegers,
  • Pieter Coenen,
  • Saskia F. A. Duijts,
  • Ute Bültmann,
  • Nina Bijker,
  • Lisette M. van Maurik,
  • Liesbeth M. Veenendaal,
  • Ingrid E. A. M. van Loon,
  • Wouter K. G. Leclercq,
  • Loes Janssen,
  • Peter W. Plaisier,
  • Karin H. Herbschleb,
  • Iris C. M. van der Ploeg,
  • Marieke E. Straver,
  • Clasien Blom,
  • Gabriëlla de Boer,
  • Anne-Marie Dietvorst,
  • Mathijs P. Hendriks,
  • Jacqueline M. Tromp,
  • Baukje Flameling,
  • Myrella Vlenterie,
  • Martine F. Thijs,
  • Myra van Linde,
  • Christianne A. R. Lok,
  • Esther M. K. Wit,
  • Eva Swart,
  • Allard J. van der Beek

摘要

Purpose

Many people diagnosed with cancer are of working age and experience challenges returning to and retaining—paid work. Existing interventions to support return to work have shown mixed effectiveness, and their cost-effectiveness is often unknown. The STEPS work participation program, based on the Stages of Change, aims to support employed cancer survivors in work resumption and retention. This study evaluated its cost-effectiveness compared to usual care.

Methods

An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month multi-center randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Employed cancer survivors were randomized to STEPS (n = 123) or usual care (n = 116). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Costs were assessed from a societal perspective. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, were conducted using seemingly unrelated regression adjusted for baseline utility and costs, with uncertainty assessed using bootstrapping.

Results

Participants in the STEPS group accrued marginally more QALYs than those receiving usual care (adjusted mean difference: 0.004; 95%CI: – 0.018 to 0.025), but this difference was neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant. Total societal costs were higher in the STEPS group than in usual care, with an adjusted mean difference of €2933 (95%CI: – €2735 to €8600). The probability of STEPS being cost-effective compared to usual care was 0.17 at a willingness-to-pay of €20,000/QALY, increasing only to 0.21 at €80,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.

Conclusion

The STEPS program cannot be considered cost-effective compared to usual care and is therefore not recommended for implementation in its current form.