Prevalence of unmet supportive care needs reported by individuals ever diagnosed with cancer in Australia: a systematic review to support service prioritisation.

PURPOSE: Improved health outcomes for individuals ever diagnosed with cancer require comprehensive, coordinated care that addresses their supportive care needs. Implementing interventions to address these is confounded by a lack of evidence on population needs and a large pool of potential interventions. This systematic review estimates the point prevalence of different supportive care needs stratified by the tool used to measure needs and cancer type in Australia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from 2010 to April 2023 to identify relevant studies published on the prevalence of supportive care needs in Australia. RESULTS: We identified 35 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The highest prevalent unmet need across all cancers was 'fear of cancer spreading' (20.7%) from the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form 34 (SCNS-SF34), ranging from 9.4% for individuals ever diagnosed with haematological cancer to 36.3% for individuals ever diagnosed with gynaecological cancer, and 'concerns about cancer coming back' (17.9%) from the Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs (CaSUN), ranging from 9.7% for individuals ever diagnosed with prostate cancer to 37.8% for individuals ever diagnosed with breast cancer. Two studies assessed needs in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, reporting the highest needs for financial worries (21.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Point prevalence estimates presented here, combined with estimates of the costs and effects of potential interventions, can be used within economic evaluations to inform evidence-based local service provision to address the supportive care needs of individuals ever diagnosed with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Local health services can use local evidence to prioritise the implementation of interventions targeted at unmet needs.

Mapping a decade of interventions to address the supportive care needs of individuals living with or beyond cancer: a scoping review of reviews.

PURPOSE: Individuals diagnosed with cancer have a range of supportive care needs that are often unmet despite substantial evidence supporting interventions to address them. Addressing this knowledge-translation gap represents a significant opportunity to improve health outcomes. A scoping review of reviews was conducted to map the breadth of evidence for interventions, highlighting those with an existing evidence base, as well as those requiring further research. METHODS: Systematic or meta-analytic reviews that examined interventions targeting supportive care needs of adults and children with cancer published between 2009 and 2019 were identified via searches in Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-one systematic reviews, including 250 meta-analyses, of interventions addressing supportive care needs, were included. Most reviews focused on interventions to address the physical and psychosocial needs of individuals with few reviews identified to address practical needs. Interventions using mental health therapies and physical activity were most commonly used to address all supportive care needs, followed by the use of pharmaceutical and medical devices, complementary and alternative therapies, information and education resources, dietary information and specific spirituality and return-to-work interventions. CONCLUSION: This scoping review of reviews presents the first broad overview of the literature addressing the supportive care needs of people living with or beyond cancer. It provides a database that health service providers can search to identify appropriate interventions. Results highlight specific research gaps, particularly for practical needs, where reviews are needed. It highlights where a substantial evidence base exists that researchers and policy-makers can consider when implementing interventions.

Are Estimates of the Health Opportunity Cost Being Used to Draw Conclusions in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses? A Scoping Review in Four Countries.

BACKGROUND: When healthcare budgets are exogenous, cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) used to inform funding decisions should represent the health opportunity cost (HOC) of such funding decisions, but HOC-based CET estimates have not been available until recently. In recent years, empirical HOC-based CETs for multiple countries have been published, but the use of these CETs in the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature has not been investigated. Analysis of the use of HOC-based CETs by researchers undertaking CEAs in countries with different decision-making contexts will provide valuable insights to further understand barriers and facilitators to the acceptance and use of HOC-based CETs. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify the CET values used to interpret the results of CEAs published in the scientific literature before and after the publication of jurisdiction-specific empirical HOC-based CETs in four countries. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review of CEAs published in Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and South Africa between 2016 (2014 in Spain) and 2020. CETs used before and after publication of HOC estimates were recorded. We conducted logit regressions exploring factors explaining the use of HOC values in identified studies and linear models exploring the association of the reported CET value with study characteristics and results. RESULTS: 1171 studies were included in this review (870 CEAs and 301 study protocols). HOC values were cited in 28% of CEAs in Spain and in 11% of studies conducted in Australia, but they were not referred to in CEAs undertaken in the Netherlands and South Africa. Regression analyses on Spanish and Australian studies indicate that more recent studies, studies without a conflict of interest and studies estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the HOC value were more likely to use the HOC as a threshold reference. In addition, we found a small but significant impact indicating that for every dollar increase in the estimated ICER, the reported CET increased by US$0.015. Based on the findings of our review, we discuss the potential factors that might explain the lack of adoption of HOC-based CETs in the empirical CEA literature. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of HOC-based CETs by identified published CEAs has been uneven across the four analysed countries, most likely due to underlying differences in their decision-making processes. Our results also reinforce a previous finding indicating that CETs might be endogenously selected to fit authors' conclusions.

Estimating the Reference Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for the Australian Health System.

BACKGROUND: Spending on new healthcare technologies increases net population health when the benefits of a new technology are greater than their opportunity costs-the benefits of the best alternative use of the additional resources required to fund a new technology. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the expected incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of increased government health expenditure as an empirical estimate of the average opportunity costs of decisions to fund new health technologies. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is proposed as a reference ICER to inform value-based decision making in Australia. METHODS: Empirical top-down approaches were used to estimate the QALY effects of government health expenditure with respect to reduced mortality and morbidity. Instrumental variable two-stage least-squares regression was used to estimate the elasticity of mortality-related QALY losses to a marginal change in government health expenditure. Regression analysis of longitudinal survey data representative of the general population was used to isolate the effects of increased government health expenditure on morbidity-related, QALY gains. Clinical judgement informed the duration of health-related quality-of-life improvement from the annual increase in government health expenditure. RESULTS: The base-case reference ICER was estimated at AUD28,033 per QALY gained. Parametric uncertainty associated with the estimation of mortality- and morbidity-related QALYs generated a 95% confidence interval AUD20,758-37,667. CONCLUSION: Recent public summary documents suggest new technologies with ICERs above AUD40,000 per QALY gained are recommended for public funding. The empirical reference ICER reported in this article suggests more QALYs could be gained if resources were allocated to other forms of health spending.