Purpose:
To compare the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led sexual rehabilitation intervention with standard care in women treated with external beam radiotherapy, with or without brachytherapy, for gynaecological cancers. Methods: Eligible women were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 112) or standard care (n = 117). Primary endpoint was sexual functioning at 12-months post-radiotherapy, assessed by the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Nurses documented frequency and duration of intervention sessions, patients reported sexual healthcare and functioning at 1, 3, 6, and 12-months. Costs were related to quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and visual analogue scale, and to sexual functioning improvement at 12-months. T-tests compared mean QALYs and costs, with multiple imputation for missing data.
Results:
The nurse-led intervention added 172 per patient, including training costs and 4-5 sessions. Other sexual...
Show morePurpose:
To compare the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led sexual rehabilitation intervention with standard care in women treated with external beam radiotherapy, with or without brachytherapy, for gynaecological cancers. Methods: Eligible women were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 112) or standard care (n = 117). Primary endpoint was sexual functioning at 12-months post-radiotherapy, assessed by the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Nurses documented frequency and duration of intervention sessions, patients reported sexual healthcare and functioning at 1, 3, 6, and 12-months. Costs were related to quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and visual analogue scale, and to sexual functioning improvement at 12-months. T-tests compared mean QALYs and costs, with multiple imputation for missing data.
Results:
The nurse-led intervention added 172 per patient, including training costs and 4-5 sessions. Other sexual rehabilitation costs were higher in the standard care group (107 versus 141, p = 0.02). Total costs were 478 for the intervention group and 357 for standard care (p = 0.03). Valued at 20.000 per QALY, the intervention was 60 %-70 % likely to be cost-effective and less than 50 % likely to be cost-effective in terms of improved sexual functioning.
Conclusion:
The nurse-led sexual rehabilitation intervention is not more cost-effective than standard care, however with low costs in both groups. Since costs for standard care were slightly lower, it is preferred from a health-economic perspective. It includes detailed patient education and a dedicated sexual rehabilitation session within the first three months post-radiotherapy, which is better provided at lower cost by a trained nurse.
Show less
