Scholarlink

Background <p>Virtual reality (VR) is potentially effective in raising awareness of testicular diseases, promoting self-examination and early help-seeking among men. This paper presents an early economic evaluation exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of Enhancing Men’s Awareness of Testicular diseases (E-MAT)<sub>VR</sub>, a VR interactive experience compared with E-MAT<sub>E</sub>, electronic information, among male athletes Results from this economic evaluation will inform and support the design of a future randomized controlled trial (RCT).</p> Methods <p>Results from an Irish feasibility trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05146466) with 74 participants conducted in 2022 were employed. Benefits were measured in monetary units whereby the contingent valuation method was used to elicit participants’ preferences through willingness-to-pay measures. A micro-cost analysis estimated the costs of the intervention and comparator and subsequent resource use. The costs and benefits of E-MAT<sub>VR</sub> and E-MAT<sub>E</sub> were compared to determine the net benefit. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted.</p> Results <p>Base case analysis suggests participants were willing to pay €21.88 for E-MAT<sub>VR</sub> and €11.16 for E-MAT<sub>E</sub>. The total cost of E-MAT<sub>VR</sub> was €104.09 and of E-MAT<sub>E</sub> was €22.75 per participant. These estimates include capital and delivery costs, of which delivery costs were €25.02 and €22.40 for E-MAT<sub>VR</sub> and E-MAT<sub>E</sub>, respectively. A negative net benefit indicates E-MAT<sub>VR</sub> was not cost-beneficial as delivered in the feasibility trial. Scenario analyses demonstrated reducing costs via delivery modifications increased the probability of E-MAT<sub>VR</sub> being considered cost-effective. The cost–benefit analysis was feasible, response rates were acceptable, and willingness-to-pay estimates were stable.</p> Conclusions <p>Economic evaluations alongside feasibility trials enable early economic evaluations, informing the design and conduct of a future RCT. E-MAT<sub>VR</sub> had higher expected benefits (WTP) and costs than E-MAT<sub>E</sub>, yielding a negative net benefit. Given the high cost of digital health interventions, investigating their cost-effectiveness early is important to inform and optimize resource allocation decisions. We present a series of scenarios to demonstrate how delivery modifications to reduce costs could improve the likelihood of E-MAT<sub>VR</sub> being considered cost-effective.</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–Benefit Analysis of the Enhancing Men’s Awareness of Testicular diseases (E-MAT) Feasibility Trial: A Virtual Reality Experience to Increase Testicular Knowledge and Self-Examination among Male Athletes

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月19日

查看全文
  • Aileen Murphy,
  • Ann Kirby,
  • Federica De Blasio,
  • Megan McCarthy,
  • Frances Shiely,
  • Josephine Hegarty,
  • Martin P. Davoren,
  • Janas M. Harrington,
  • Gillian W. Shorter,
  • David Murphy,
  • Billy O’Mahony,
  • Eoghan Cooke,
  • Michael J. Rovito,
  • Steve Robertson,
  • Serena FitzGerald,
  • Alan O. Connor,
  • Mícheál O. Riordan,
  • Mohamad M. Saab

摘要

Background

Virtual reality (VR) is potentially effective in raising awareness of testicular diseases, promoting self-examination and early help-seeking among men. This paper presents an early economic evaluation exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of Enhancing Men’s Awareness of Testicular diseases (E-MAT)VR, a VR interactive experience compared with E-MATE, electronic information, among male athletes Results from this economic evaluation will inform and support the design of a future randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

Results from an Irish feasibility trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05146466) with 74 participants conducted in 2022 were employed. Benefits were measured in monetary units whereby the contingent valuation method was used to elicit participants’ preferences through willingness-to-pay measures. A micro-cost analysis estimated the costs of the intervention and comparator and subsequent resource use. The costs and benefits of E-MATVR and E-MATE were compared to determine the net benefit. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

Results

Base case analysis suggests participants were willing to pay €21.88 for E-MATVR and €11.16 for E-MATE. The total cost of E-MATVR was €104.09 and of E-MATE was €22.75 per participant. These estimates include capital and delivery costs, of which delivery costs were €25.02 and €22.40 for E-MATVR and E-MATE, respectively. A negative net benefit indicates E-MATVR was not cost-beneficial as delivered in the feasibility trial. Scenario analyses demonstrated reducing costs via delivery modifications increased the probability of E-MATVR being considered cost-effective. The cost–benefit analysis was feasible, response rates were acceptable, and willingness-to-pay estimates were stable.

Conclusions

Economic evaluations alongside feasibility trials enable early economic evaluations, informing the design and conduct of a future RCT. E-MATVR had higher expected benefits (WTP) and costs than E-MATE, yielding a negative net benefit. Given the high cost of digital health interventions, investigating their cost-effectiveness early is important to inform and optimize resource allocation decisions. We present a series of scenarios to demonstrate how delivery modifications to reduce costs could improve the likelihood of E-MATVR being considered cost-effective.