Cost-benefit Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Mammography: A Systematic Review.

Background: Breast cancer is a non-communicable and common disease that accounts for a high percentage of deaths. Early diagnosis of this disease reduces the death rate. Screening methods such as digital mammography can help prevent or identify the disease earlier. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the cost-benefit of breast cancer using digital mammography. Methods: This systematic review was conducted based on PRISMA 2020 checklist. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched without any time limitation on June 2022. The quality of the studies was evaluated with the CHEERS checklist. After data extraction, the results were synthesized by thematic content analysis. Results: During the search, 3468 records were identified, of which 1061 were duplicates. 2407 titles and abstracts screened in terms of inclusion criteria. Finally, after studying 20 fulltexts, three of them were included in the study. The quality of these articles was scored between 10 and 16. These studies were from Spain, Denmark, and the United States from 2000 to 2019. Two studies showed that digital mammography is not as effective as other screening methods. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that digital mammography is not very cost-benefit for the health care system. An increase in its repetition frequency imposes more costs on the health system and doesn't have more benefits for it.

Factors Explaining the Change in Socioeconomic Inequality of Disability in Iran: A Repeated Cross-sectional Study.

Background: More than 15% of the world's population live with some form of disability. Assessing socioeconomic inequalities in disability and monitoring its change over time can help policymakers to design and implement targeted interventions to reduce these inequalities. This study aimed to assess the change in socioeconomic inequality in disability in Iran from 2000 to 2010. Methods: Data for this cross-sectional study were obtained from 2 waves of Iran's demographic and health surveys (2000 and 2010). The Wagstaff normalized concentration index was used to measure the socioeconomic inequality of disability. Contributing factors to the inequality in 2000 and 2010 were investigated by concentration index decomposition. The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method was used to determine contributing factors of change in disability inequality. All analyses were conducted in Stata14. Results: The negative and statistically significant concentration indices (-0.132 in 2000 and -0.165 in 2010, P < 0.001) suggested more concentration of disability among poor people. The absolute value of inequality was increased by 0.034 between the 2 points of time (P = 0.025). Level of education (123.5%), household size (12.9%), age (-35.1%), and residency (in terms of Iran's provinces) (-19.3%) were the contributing factors to the measured disability inequality in 2000. In 2010, level of education (105.8%), household size (30.5%), and urban residency (-46.3%) explained the measured inequality. Change in disability inequality was explained by household size (99.4%), province of residence (54.8%), education (36.9%), socioeconomic status (20%), urban residency (-90.3%), and age (-47.7%). Conclusion: Iran suffers from significant socioeconomic inequality in disability, and it significantly increased over time. Interventions such as increasing health literacy and providing suitable job opportunities for people with low education level, improving the socioeconomic status of extended households, and paying more attention to the balanced development in the provinces and urban and rural areas, and attending to prevention, treatment, and mitigation of disability adversities among poor young and elderly people could be recommended to tackle increased socioeconomic inequality in disability and its unfavorable consequences in Iran.

The Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of Statin Drug for the Treatment of Patients with Cardiovascular Disease, A Systematic Review.

Cardiovascular diseases impose a burden of disease and economic burden on society. With regard to different drugs are used to treat cardiovascular disease; these interventions should be economically evaluated and them that the most cost-effective were selected. The aim of this study was to investigate the studies carried on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of statin drugs for the treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease between 2004 and 2020. Quality assessment of the articles was examined by Drummond's checklist. Given that the inclusion criteria, 26 articles included in the review. The results of this review showed that many articles related to the economic evaluation of statin drugs adhered international standards for performing economic evaluation studies. All the studies mentioned the source of effectiveness (the second criteria) and alternative options for the comparison (the third criteria). Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin drugs were the main options for the comparison in the studies. Although the results of the studies were different in some aspects, such as the type of modeling, costs items and the study perspective, they reached the same results which the use of statin drugs versus no-drug can decrease cost, cardiovascular events and deaths and increase QALY. The results were nearly different due to study design, time horizon, efficacy, and drug prices.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: A systematic review.

Background: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the recommended treatment for early breast cancer. After BCS. Whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care. A possible alternative to post-operative WB-EBRT is intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT). The objectives of this systematic review were to analyses the cost-effectiveness of IORT versus EBRT for early-stage breast cancer and to assess the reporting quality of the included studies to inform future studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in five main databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science) to identify original studies published to June 25, 2020. We included all full economic evaluation studies (cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA), Model-based or trial-based) that assessed and compared IORT and EBRT in patients with early operable breast cancer. Study outcomes included cost per life-years gained or cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained or in monetary units or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The quality of the included articles was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. This review has been conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Results: Of 1155 studies identified, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. In four studies, IORT was associated with lower costs and higher effectiveness than EBRT. In three studies, the dominant option was EBRT. In these studies, IORT also had lower costs and lower effectiveness than EBRT. Existing evidence suggests that IORT can be a cost-effective alternative to early breast cancer treatment by reducing therapeutic costs. Variables of cost-effectiveness were treatment costs, health state utilities, local and distant recurrence rates, and the probabilities of metastasis after treatment, recurrent cancer and death for both IORT and EBRT. The reporting quality of the included studies was "high" in five, "medium quality" in one and "low" in two studies. Conclusion: Current evidence is sparse, and the number of studies was small but this evidence proposes that IORT can be a potential cost-saving strategy to the health systems for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer if the technology was carried out routinely in eligible patients. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity of studies and possible publication bias.

Explaining the Process of Spiritual healing of Critically-ill Patients: A Grounded Theory Study.

BACKGROUND: Spiritual healing is one of the most intriguing category of alternative and complementary medicine. The aim of this study was to explain the process of spiritual healing in patients with refractory diseases in Iran. METHODS: This grounded theory study was conducted in Iran from 2018 to 2019. The participants were 14 patients with refractory diseases and 4 healers whom were first selected through purposeful and then theoretical sampling. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data on patients and healers. All the interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data were coded and grouped under specific categories and analyzed using the Strauss and Corbin's approach (2008). RESULTS: Four main categories emerged from data analysis including: I) frustration to initial acceptance II) disbelief to trust III) evaluation to action and IV) doubt to certainty. CONCLUSION: The results of our study provide context-specific factors affecting the complex and multifactorial nature of spiritual healing process in patients with refractory diseases. Health care professional can use these findings in designing and implementing appropriate interventions to integrate spiritual healing into their holistic practices of care.