Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 13: e52689, 2024 Feb 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38345836

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although melanoma survival rates have improved in recent years, survivors remain at risk of recurrence, second primary cancers, and keratinocyte carcinomas. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends skin examinations by a physician every 3 to 12 months. Regular thorough skin self-examinations (SSEs) are recommended for survivors of melanoma to promote the detection of earlier-stage, thinner melanomas, which are associated with improved survival and lower treatment costs. Despite their importance, less than a quarter of survivors of melanoma engage in SSEs. OBJECTIVE: Previously, our team developed and evaluated a web-based, fully automated intervention called mySmartSkin (MSS) that successfully improved SSE among survivors of melanoma. Enhancements were proposed to improve engagement with and outcomes of MSS. The purpose of this paper is to describe the rationale and methodology for a type-1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomized trial evaluating the enhanced MSS versus control and exploring implementation outcomes and contextual factors. METHODS: This study will recruit from state cancer registries and social media 300 individuals diagnosed with cutaneous malignant melanoma between 3 months and 5 years after surgery who are currently cancer free. Participants will be randomly assigned to either enhanced MSS or a noninteractive educational web page. Surveys will be collected from both arms at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months to assess measures of intervention engagement, barriers, self-efficacy, habit, and SSE. The primary outcome is thorough SSE. The secondary outcomes are the diagnosis of new or recurrent melanomas and sun protection practices. RESULTS: Multilevel modeling will be used to examine whether there are significant differences in survivor outcomes between MSS and the noninteractive web page over time. Mixed methods will evaluate reach, adoption, implementation (including costs), and potential for maintenance of MSS, as well as contextual factors relevant to those outcomes and future scale-up. CONCLUSIONS: This trial has the potential to improve outcomes in survivors of melanoma. If MSS is effective, the results could guide its implementation in oncology care and nonprofit organizations focused on skin cancers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/52689.

2.
J Urol ; 203(5): 969-977, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31738113

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Sacral neuromodulation and intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection are therapies for refractory urgency urinary incontinence. Sacral neuromodulation involves surgical implantation of a device that can last 4 to 6 years while onabotulinumtoxinA therapy involves serial office injections. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of 2-stage implantation sacral neuromodulation vs 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of urgency urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrent with the ROSETTA (Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment) randomized trial of 386 women with 6 or more urgency urinary incontinence episodes on a 3-day diary. Analysis is from the health care system perspective with primary within-trial analysis for 2 years and secondary 5-year decision analysis. Costs are in 2018 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and reductions in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day. We generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Two-year costs were higher for sacral neuromodulation than for onabotulinumtoxinA ($35,680 [95% CI 33,920-37,440] vs $7,460 [95% CI 5,780-9,150], p <0.01), persisting through 5 years ($36,550 [95% CI 34,787-38,309] vs $12,020 [95% CI 10,330-13,700], p <0.01). At 2 years there were no differences in mean reduction in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day (-3.00 [95% CI -3.38 - -2.62] vs -3.12 [95% CI -3.48 - -2.76], p=0.66) or QALYs (1.39 [95% CI 1.34-1.44] vs 1.41 [95% CI 1.36-1.45], p=0.60). The probability that sacral neuromodulation is cost-effective relative to onabotulinumtoxinA is less than 0.025 for all willingness to pay values below $580,000 per QALY at 2 years and $204,000 per QALY at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although both treatments were effective, the high cost of sacral neuromodulation is not good value for treating urgency urinary incontinence compared to 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.


Assuntos
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea/economia , Incontinência Urinária de Urgência/terapia , Micção/fisiologia , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/administração & dosagem , Análise Custo-Benefício , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Plexo Lombossacral , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Incontinência Urinária de Urgência/economia , Incontinência Urinária de Urgência/fisiopatologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA