| 2. |
- Mujcic, Ajla, et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, and Cost-Utility of a Digital Alcohol Moderation Intervention for Cancer Survivors : Health Economic Evaluation and Outcomes of a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - : JMIR Publications. - 1438-8871. ; 24:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Alcohol moderation (AM) interventions may contribute to better treatment outcomes and the general well-being of cancer survivors.Objective: This study evaluates the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility of MyCourse, a digital AM intervention, compared with a noninteractive digital information brochure for cancer survivors.Methods: A health economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic 2-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted with follow-ups at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The study was conducted on the web in the Netherlands from 2016 to 2019. Participants were adult 10-year cancer survivors drinking over the Dutch-recommended drinking guidelines (<= 7 standard units [10 g of alcohol] per week) with the intention to moderate or quit drinking. Overall, 103 participants were randomized and analyzed: 53 (51.5%) in the MyCourse group and 50 (48.5%) in the control group. In the MyCourse group, participants had access to a newly developed, digital, minimally guided AM intervention, MyCourse Moderate Drinking. The primary outcome was the self-reported number of standard drinks (10 g of ethanol) consumed in the past 7 days at the 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were alcohol-related problems as measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and treatment satisfaction. For the health economic evaluation, health care costs, costs because of productivity losses, and intervention costs were assessed over a 12-month horizon.Results: Alcohol use at the 6-month follow-up decreased by 38% in the MyCourse group and by 33% in the control group. No difference in 7-day alcohol use was found between the groups (B=2.1, 95% CI -7.6 to 3.1; P=.22) at any of the follow-ups. AUDIT scores for alcohol-related problems decreased over time in both groups, showing no significant difference between the groups (Cohen d=0.3, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.6; P=.21). Intervention costs per participant were estimated at US $279 for the MyCourse group and US $74 for the control group. The mean societal costs were US $18,092 (SD 25,662) and US $23,496 (SD 34,327), respectively. The MyCourse group led to fewer gained quality-adjusted life years at lower societal costs in the cost-utility analysis. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the MyCourse group led to a larger reduction in drinking units over time at lower societal costs (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per reduced drink: US $ -1158, 95% CI -1609 to -781).Conclusions: At 6 months, alcohol use was reduced by approximately one-third in both groups, with no significant differences between the digital intervention MyCourse and a noninteractive web-based brochure. At 12 months, cost-effectiveness analyses showed that MyCourse led to a larger reduction in drinking units over time, at lower societal costs. The MyCourse group led to marginally fewer gained quality-adjusted life years, also at lower societal costs.
|
|
| 3. |
- Mujcic, Ajla, et al.
(författare)
-
The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors : A meta-analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Psycho-Oncology. - : Wiley. - 1057-9249 .- 1099-1611. ; 29:1, s. 49-60
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P = .007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P < .0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.31, P = .24). Conclusions Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.
|
|
