Economic evaluation assesses the Cancer Home-Life Intervention's cost-effectiveness compared to usual care, showing a 72% cost-effectiveness probability.
Background: People with advanced cancer often face significant challenges in everyday activities, especially within their home environments, where they spend most of their time. The Cancer Home-Life Intervention is an occupational therapy-based program supporting everyday activities in people with advanced cancer living at home. Aim: To examine the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of the Cancer Home-Life Intervention compared to usual care over six months. Methods: This economic evaluation with a societal perspective was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02356627). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and activities of daily living motor ability accounted for the outcome. Costs included primary and secondary health care, domestic care, assistive devices, and participants' out-of-pocket costs. A total of 242 adults with advanced cancer were included from two Danish University Hospitals and randomized 1:1 to the Cancer Home-Life Intervention or usual care. Primary analysis included 172 participants alive at six months follow-up. Results: The intervention showed no statistically significant improvement in either QALYs or activities of daily living motor ability compared to usual care. However, the cost-utility analysis revealed a 72% probability of the intervention being cost-effective, regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained. The probability of cost-effectiveness for activities of daily living motor ability started at 26% and increased to 58%. Sensitivity analyses supported these findings. Conclusion: The Cancer Home-Life Intervention showed limited potential for cost-effectiveness compared to usual practice. The cost-utility analysis revealed a 72% probability of cost-effectiveness. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to small, nonstatistically significant improvements in QALYs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oestergaard et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: