• Louisa G. Gordon Louisa G. Gordon
  • Paul Scuffham Paul Scuffham
  • Diana Battistutta Diana Battistutta
  • Nick Graves Nick Graves
  • Margaret Tweeddale Margaret Tweeddale
  • Beth Newman Beth Newman

The purpose of this research was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two rehabilitation interventions for breast cancer survivors, each compared to a population-based, non-intervention group (n = 208). The two services included an early home-based physiotherapy intervention (DAART, n = 36) and a group-based exercise and psychosocial intervention (STRETCH, n = 31). A societal perspective was taken and costs were included as those incurred by the health care system, the survivors and community. Health outcomes included: (a) 'rehabilitated cases' based on changes in health-related quality of life between 6 and 12 months post-diagnosis, using the Functiol Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer plus Arm Morbidity (FACT-B+4) questionire, and (b) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using utility scores from the Subjective Health Estimation (SHE) scale. Data were collected using self-reported questionires, medical records and program budgets. A Monte-Carlo modelling approach was used to test for uncertainty in cost and outcome estimates. The proportion of rehabilitated cases was similar across the three groups. From a societal perspective compared with the non-intervention group, the DAART intervention appeared to be the most efficient option with an incremental cost of $1344 per QALY gained, whereas the incremental cost per QALY gained from the STRETCH program was $14,478. Both DAART and STRETCH are low-cost, low-technological health promoting programs representing excellent public health investments.