Test-retest reliability of the Cost for Patients Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the test-retest reliability of the Costs for Patients Questionnaire (CoPaQ). METHODS: Through an online survey, individuals were invited to participate in a two-step study to assess the test-retest reliability of the CoPaQ. Participants to the first step were invited to complete the questionnaire a second time 2 weeks after. Reliability was assessed by calculating Cohen's Kappa coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for discrete and continuous data, respectively. A sensitivity analysis was carried out. RESULTS: From a total of 1,200 participants who completed the first test, 403 completed the second test. The ICC varied from -0.00 to 0.98 with poor, moderate, good, and excellent results. The Kappa coefficients varied from -0.004 to 0.65 and were poor, slight, fair, moderate, and substantial. The sensitivity analysis showed the median value of ICC and Kappa coefficients for each category before and after the outliers' exclusion. The median value of ICC changed from 0.30 (before) to 0.70 (after), and from 0.12 (before) to 0.04 (after), respectively, for each category. The median value of the Cohen's Kappa coefficient increased from 0.44 (before) to 0.46 (after) and decreased from 0.32 (before) to 0.30 (after), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Test-retest reliability results indicated that the CoPaQ has a moderate reliability in terms of ICC and Kappa coefficients. The moderate reliability observed gives additional support for the applicability of this tool in economic evaluations of health interventions. Additional studies including on other properties and a cultural adaptation could further enhance the use of the tool.

Validated Tools to Measure Costs for Patients: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing healthcare expenditures is a major concern to insurers and governments, but also to patients who must pay a greater proportion of their healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to identify validated tools for measuring the costs of a health condition for patients as well as the different elements to be considered when measuring costs from the patient's perspective. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted from 1984 to December 2020. The search strategy was applied to seven different databases that had been identified prior as pertinent sources. Two authors independently extracted and compiled data. In case of disagreement, arbitration by two other researchers was conducted. The methodological quality of the included articles was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: Among the 679 retrieved articles, nine met the inclusion criteria. The types of costs evaluated in these studies included direct costs for patients as well as for caregivers, indirect costs, and intangible costs. The development and validation processes used in these articles included a literature search, a discussion with the involved stakeholders, the development of an initial questionnaire, the testing of the questionnaire on a sample of patients, and a critical review. Regarding the psychometric properties of the tool, only five studies tested the reliability and validity of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: There are very few validated tools available to measure the different health-related costs from a patient perspective. Further research is needed to develop and validate a versatile and generalizable tool using a rigorous methodological process.

Attributes Underlying Patient Choice for Telerehabilitation Treatment: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review to Support a Discrete Choice Experiment Study Design.

BACKGROUND: Across most healthcare systems, patients are the primary focus. Patient involvements enhance their adherence to treatment, which in return, influences their health. The objective of this study was to determine the characteristics (ie, attributes) and associated levels (ie, values of the characteristics) that are the most important for patients regarding telerehabilitation (TR) healthcare to support a future discrete choice experiment (DCE) study design. METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted from January 2005 to the end of July 2020 and the search strategy was applied to five different databases. The initial selection of articles that met the eligibility criteria was independently made by one researcher, two researchers verified the accuracy of the extracted data, and all researchers discussed about relevant variables to include. Reporting of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of the study. A qualitative synthesis was used to summarize findings. RESULTS: From a total of 928 articles, 11 (qualitative [n = 5], quantitative [n = 3] and mixed-methods [n = 3] design) were included, and 25 attributes were identified and grouped into 13 categories: Accessibility, Distance, Interaction, Technology experience, Treatment mode, Treatment location, Physician contact mode, Physician contact frequency, Cost, Confidence, Ease of use, Feeling safer, and Training session. The attributes levels varied from two to five. The DCE studies identified showed the main stages to undertake these types of studies. CONCLUSION: This study could guide the development of interview grid for individual interviews and focus groups to support a DCE study design in the TR field. By understanding the characteristics that enhance patients' preferences, healthcare providers can create or improve TR programs that provide high-quality and accessible care. Future research via a DCE is needed to determine the relative importance of the attributes.

Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Health-Related Out-of-Pocket Costs: The Cost for Patients Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: The growth of healthcare spending is a major concern for insurers and governments but also for patients whose health problems may result in costs going beyond direct medical costs. To develop a comprehensive tool to measure direct and indirect costs of a health condition for patients and their families to various outpatient contexts. METHODS: We conducted a content and face validation including results of a systematic review to identify the items related to direct and indirect costs for patients or their families and an online Delphi to determine the cost items to retain. We conducted a pilot test-retest with 18 naive participants and analyzed data calculating intraclass correlation and kappa coefficients. RESULTS: An initial list of 34 items was established from the systematic review. Each round of the Delphi panel incorporated feedback from the previous round until a strong consensus was achieved. After 4 rounds of the Delphi to reach consensus on items to be included and wording, the questionnaire had a total of 32 cost items. For the test-retest, kappa coefficients ranged from -0.11 to 1.00 (median = 0.86), and intraclass correlation ranged from -0.02 to 0.99 (median = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: A rigorous process of content and face development was implemented for the Cost for Patients Questionnaire, and this study allowed to set a list of cost elements to be considered from the patient's perspective. Additional research including a test-retest with a larger sample will be part of a subsequent validation strategy.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent: Systematic review and cost-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DESs) were considered as ground-breaking technology promising to eradicate restenosis and the necessity to perform multiple revascularization procedures subsequent to percutaneous coronary intervention. Soon after DESs were released on the market, however, there were reports of a potential increase in mortality and of early or late thrombosis. In addition, DESs are far more expensive than bare-metal stents (BMSs), which has led to their limited use in many countries. The technology has improved over the last few years with the second generation of DESs (DES-2). Moreover, costs have come down and an improved safety profile with decreased thrombosis has been reported. OBJECTIVE: Perform a cost-benefit analysis of DES-2s versus BMSs in the context of a publicly funded university hospital in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: A systematic review of meta-analyses was conducted between 2012 and 2016 to extract data on clinical effectiveness. The clinical outcome of interest for the cost-benefit analysis was target-vessel revascularization (TVR). Cost units are those used in the Quebec health-care system. The cost-benefit analysis was based on a 2-year perspective. Deterministic and stochastic models (discrete-event simulation) were used, and various risk factors of reintervention were considered. RESULTS: DES-2s are much more effective than BMSs with respect to TVR rate ratio (i.e., 0.29 to 0.62 in more recent meta-analyses). DES-2s seem to cause fewer deaths and in-stent thrombosis than BMSs, but results are rarely significant, with the exception of the cobalt-chromium everolimus DES. The rate ratio of myocardial infraction is systematically in favor of DES-2s and very often significant. Despite the higher cost of DES-2s, fewer reinterventions can lead to huge savings (i.e., -$479 to -$769 per patient). Moreover, the higher a patient's risk of reintervention, the higher the savings associated with the use of DES-2s. CONCLUSION: Despite the higher purchase cost of DES-2s compared to BMSs, generalizing their use, in particular for patients at high risk of reintervention, should enable significant savings.