Qualitative research on the Belgian Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES): An evaluation of the content validity and feasibility.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The systematic assessment of cancer patients well-being and care needs is internationally recommended to optimize comprehensive cancer care. The Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES) is a psychometrically robust quality of life and needs assessment tool of US origin, developed in the early 1990s. This article describes Belgian patients' view on the content validity and feasibility of the CARES for use in current cancer care. METHODS: Participants were cancer patients recruited through media. Data were gathered in 4 focus groups (n = 26). The focus group discussions were facilitated with key questions. A moderator and an observer conducted and followed up the discussion. The audio file was transcribed verbatim and afterwards analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Participants experience concerns and needs in a wide range of life domains such as physical, emotional, cognitive, social, relational, sexual, financial, and work-related and in the interaction with care professionals. According to participants, the items of the CARES are all relevant to capture the possible life disruption that cancer patients and survivors experience. One important theme is missing in the CARES, namely, the well-being of loved ones. The completion time of the CARES was judged to be feasible, and according to participants, only a few items need a reformulation. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the results of this study support the content validity and feasibility of the CARES. However, little adjustments in formulation and a few extra items are needed. The instrument can be used to obtain a comprehensive assessment of a cancer patients' overall well-being and care needs to take dedicated action in care.

Economic Impact of Integrated Care Models for Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the costs and potential financial benefits of integrated care models for patients with chronic diseases, that is, type 2 diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis, respectively. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. Studies that conducted a cost analysis, considered at least two components of the chronic care model, and compared integrated care with standard care were included. RESULTS: Out of 575 articles, 26 were included. Most studies examined integrated care models for type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 18) and to a lesser extent for schizophrenia (n = 6) and multiple sclerosis (n = 2). Across the three disease groups, the incremental cost per patient per year ranged from - €3860 to + €613.91 (x¯ = - €533.61 ± €902.96). The incremental cost for type 2 diabetes mellitus ranged from - €1507.49 to + €299.20 (x¯ = - €518.22 ± + €604.75), for schizophrenia from - €3860 to + €613.91 (x¯ = - €677.21 ± + €1624.35), and for multiple sclerosis from - €822 to + €339.43 (x¯ = - €241.29 ± + €821.26). Most of the studies (22 of 26 [84.6%]) reported a positive economic impact of integrated care models: for type 2 diabetes mellitus (16 of 18 [88.9%]), schizophrenia (4 of 6 [66.7%]), and multiple sclerosis (1 of 2 [50%]). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic literature review, predominantly positive economic impacts of integrated care models for patients with chronic diseases were found.

Cost-Effectiveness of Reduced Waiting Time for Head and Neck Cancer Patients due to a Lean Process Redesign.

BACKGROUND: Compared with new technologies, the redesign of care processes is generally considered less attractive to improve patient outcomes. Nevertheless, it might result in better patient outcomes, without further increasing costs. Because early initiation of treatment is of vital importance for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC), these care processes were redesigned. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness of this redesign. METHODS: An economic (Markov) model was constructed to evaluate the biopsy process of suspicious lesion under local instead of general anesthesia, and combining computed tomography and positron emission tomography for diagnostics and radiotherapy planning. Patients treated for HNC were included in the model stratified by disease location (larynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and oral cavity) and stage (I-II and III-IV). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Waiting time before treatment start reduced from 5 to 22 days for the included patient groups, resulting in 0.13 to 0.66 additional quality-adjusted life-years. The new workflow was cost-effective for all the included patient groups, using a ceiling ratio of €80,000 or €20,000. For patients treated for tumors located at the larynx and oral cavity, the new workflow resulted in additional quality-adjusted life-years, and costs decreased compared with the regular workflow. The health care payer benefited €14.1 million and €91.5 million, respectively, when individual net monetary benefits were extrapolated to an organizational level and a national level. CONCLUSIONS: The redesigned care process reduced the waiting time for the treatment of patients with HNC and proved cost-effective. Because care improved, implementation on a wider scale should be considered.