Data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of tobacco treatment programs in the NCI Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.
Cancer
Data envelopment analysis
Efficiency
Implementation costs
Implementation science
Program performance
Smoking cessation
Tobacco treatment
Journal
Implementation science communications
ISSN: 2662-2211
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101764360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 May 2023
11 May 2023
Historique:
received:
08
12
2022
accepted:
02
05
2023
medline:
12
5
2023
pubmed:
12
5
2023
entrez:
11
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources. DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes. In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8). Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources.
METHODS
METHODS
DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37170381
doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00433-3
pii: 10.1186/s43058-023-00433-3
pmc: PMC10173908
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
50Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : 17GZSK0031
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Health Econ. 2008 Oct;17(10):1107-28
pubmed: 18702091
Nicotine Tob Res. 2013 Jan;15(1):52-8
pubmed: 22499079
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2019 Nov;12(11):735-740
pubmed: 31481540
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022 May;20(5):488-495.e4
pubmed: 35545172
Cancer. 2014 Jul 1;120(13):1914-6
pubmed: 24687615
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Jan;23(1):3-9
pubmed: 24420982
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jun;103(6):e38-46
pubmed: 23597377
Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7
pubmed: 10474547
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021 Nov;19(Suppl_1):S16-S20
pubmed: 34872053
Front Public Health. 2020 Jun 12;8:221
pubmed: 32596200
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 5;2(4):e191703
pubmed: 30951159
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Sep;23(9):1783-92
pubmed: 25100826
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May;18(5):1067-75
pubmed: 26346948
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(3):CD001292
pubmed: 12137623
Prev Med. 2021 May;146:106469
pubmed: 33639182
Am J Prev Med. 2021 Mar;60(3 Suppl 2):S113-S122
pubmed: 33663698
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 9;14(12):e0226110
pubmed: 31815948
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1912264
pubmed: 31560380
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Apr 15;22(8):1907-13
pubmed: 26888828
J Clin Oncol. 2022 Dec 6;:JCO2200936
pubmed: 36473135
Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Apr 9;2(1):41
pubmed: 33836840
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jul 1;3(7):e209072
pubmed: 32614423
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Sep;55(3):422-430
pubmed: 30033029
Cancer Epidemiol. 2022 Jun;78:102005
pubmed: 34446379
Health Serv Res. 2018 Dec;53(6):4829-4847
pubmed: 29665053
Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Jul 17;2(1):77
pubmed: 34274004
Health Policy. 2013 Sep;112(1-2):70-9
pubmed: 23558262
N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380(6):512-515
pubmed: 30601710
Fam Pract. 2020 Mar 25;37(2):147-153
pubmed: 31605609
BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 12;10(1):e031924
pubmed: 31932390