Cost-effectiveness of a policy-based intervention to reduce melanoma and other skin cancers associated with indoor tanningCitation formats

Standard

Cost-effectiveness of a policy-based intervention to reduce melanoma and other skin cancers associated with indoor tanning. / Eden, Martin; Hainsworth, Rob; Gordon, Louisa G; Epton, Tracy; Lorigan, Paul; Rhodes, Lesley E; Marais, Richard; Green, Adele C; Payne, Katherine.

In: The British journal of dermatology, 10.02.2022.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{9c39dab973c040079bbeb9e703fb007d,
title = "Cost-effectiveness of a policy-based intervention to reduce melanoma and other skin cancers associated with indoor tanning",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The use of indoor tanning devices causes melanoma and other skin cancers with resulting morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Policy-makers require robust economic evidence to inform decisions about a possible ban of such devices to mitigate these burdens.OBJECTIVES: To assess the health costs and consequences of introducing a policy-based intervention across England to ban commercial indoor tanning with an accompanying public information campaign.METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis, adopting a healthcare system perspective, was conducted using a decision-model to track a national cohort of 18-year-olds over a lifetime time horizon. A nationwide ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign (the policy-based intervention) was compared with the status quo of availability of commercial indoor tanning. The expected costs (currency: GBP, price year: 2019) and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated. Net Monetary Benefit (NMB; net benefit measured in cost compared to an accepted threshold) and Net Health Benefit (NHB; net gain in QALYs compared to an accepted threshold) of implementation were calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to calculate the probability the intervention was cost-effective.RESULTS: Compared to the current situation, a ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign would result in 1,206 avoided cases of melanoma, 207 fewer melanoma deaths, and 3,987 averted cases of keratinocyte cancers over the lifetime of all 18-year-olds (n=618,873) living in England in 2019. An additional 497 QALYs would be realised along with healthcare cost-savings of £697,858. This intervention would result in an NMB of £10.6m and a NHB of 530 QALYS. Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000, there is a 99% likelihood of this policy-based intervention being cost-effective.CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a ban on commercial indoor tanning across England with an accompanying public information campaign would be an effective use of healthcare resources.",
author = "Martin Eden and Rob Hainsworth and Gordon, {Louisa G} and Tracy Epton and Paul Lorigan and Rhodes, {Lesley E} and Richard Marais and Green, {Adele C} and Katherine Payne",
note = "This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.",
year = "2022",
month = feb,
day = "10",
doi = "10.1111/bjd.21046",
language = "English",
journal = "British Journal of Dermatology",
issn = "0007-0963",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of a policy-based intervention to reduce melanoma and other skin cancers associated with indoor tanning

AU - Eden, Martin

AU - Hainsworth, Rob

AU - Gordon, Louisa G

AU - Epton, Tracy

AU - Lorigan, Paul

AU - Rhodes, Lesley E

AU - Marais, Richard

AU - Green, Adele C

AU - Payne, Katherine

N1 - This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

PY - 2022/2/10

Y1 - 2022/2/10

N2 - BACKGROUND: The use of indoor tanning devices causes melanoma and other skin cancers with resulting morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Policy-makers require robust economic evidence to inform decisions about a possible ban of such devices to mitigate these burdens.OBJECTIVES: To assess the health costs and consequences of introducing a policy-based intervention across England to ban commercial indoor tanning with an accompanying public information campaign.METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis, adopting a healthcare system perspective, was conducted using a decision-model to track a national cohort of 18-year-olds over a lifetime time horizon. A nationwide ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign (the policy-based intervention) was compared with the status quo of availability of commercial indoor tanning. The expected costs (currency: GBP, price year: 2019) and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated. Net Monetary Benefit (NMB; net benefit measured in cost compared to an accepted threshold) and Net Health Benefit (NHB; net gain in QALYs compared to an accepted threshold) of implementation were calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to calculate the probability the intervention was cost-effective.RESULTS: Compared to the current situation, a ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign would result in 1,206 avoided cases of melanoma, 207 fewer melanoma deaths, and 3,987 averted cases of keratinocyte cancers over the lifetime of all 18-year-olds (n=618,873) living in England in 2019. An additional 497 QALYs would be realised along with healthcare cost-savings of £697,858. This intervention would result in an NMB of £10.6m and a NHB of 530 QALYS. Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000, there is a 99% likelihood of this policy-based intervention being cost-effective.CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a ban on commercial indoor tanning across England with an accompanying public information campaign would be an effective use of healthcare resources.

AB - BACKGROUND: The use of indoor tanning devices causes melanoma and other skin cancers with resulting morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Policy-makers require robust economic evidence to inform decisions about a possible ban of such devices to mitigate these burdens.OBJECTIVES: To assess the health costs and consequences of introducing a policy-based intervention across England to ban commercial indoor tanning with an accompanying public information campaign.METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis, adopting a healthcare system perspective, was conducted using a decision-model to track a national cohort of 18-year-olds over a lifetime time horizon. A nationwide ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign (the policy-based intervention) was compared with the status quo of availability of commercial indoor tanning. The expected costs (currency: GBP, price year: 2019) and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated. Net Monetary Benefit (NMB; net benefit measured in cost compared to an accepted threshold) and Net Health Benefit (NHB; net gain in QALYs compared to an accepted threshold) of implementation were calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to calculate the probability the intervention was cost-effective.RESULTS: Compared to the current situation, a ban on commercial indoor tanning combined with a public information campaign would result in 1,206 avoided cases of melanoma, 207 fewer melanoma deaths, and 3,987 averted cases of keratinocyte cancers over the lifetime of all 18-year-olds (n=618,873) living in England in 2019. An additional 497 QALYs would be realised along with healthcare cost-savings of £697,858. This intervention would result in an NMB of £10.6m and a NHB of 530 QALYS. Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000, there is a 99% likelihood of this policy-based intervention being cost-effective.CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a ban on commercial indoor tanning across England with an accompanying public information campaign would be an effective use of healthcare resources.

U2 - 10.1111/bjd.21046

DO - 10.1111/bjd.21046

M3 - Article

C2 - 35141876

JO - British Journal of Dermatology

JF - British Journal of Dermatology

SN - 0007-0963

ER -