Ida J. Korfage

Country flagNetherlands

Research Interests

Explore related searches

Contact this professor

Get a free first email built on one of their papers, ready for you to edit and send yourself.

Articles (10)

In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Four hundred sixty four female patients with breast cancer treated at Erasmus MC, the Netherlands, completed EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaires from diagnosis throughout their treatment. Average utilities were calculated stratified by age and treatment. These utilities were applied in CEAs analysing 920 breast cancer screening policies differing in eligible ages and screening interval simulated by the MISCAN‐Breast microsimulation model, using a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of €20,000. The CEAs included varying sets on normative, breast cancer treatment and screening and follow‐up utilities. Efficiency frontiers were compared to assess the impact of the utility sets. The calculated average patient utilities were reduced at breast cancer diagnosis and 6 months after surgery and increased toward normative utilities 12 months after surgery. When using normative utility values of 1 in CEAs, QALYs were overestimated compared to using average gender and age‐specific values. Only small differences in QALYs gained were seen when varying treatment utilities in CEAs. The CEAs varying screening and follow‐up utilities showed only small changes in QALYs gained and the efficiency frontier. Throughout all variations in utility sets, the optimal strategy remained robust; biennial for ages 40–76 years and occasionally biennial 40–74 years. In sum, we recommend to use gender and age stratified normative utilities in CEAs, and patient‐based breast cancer utilities stratified by age and treatment or disease stage. Furthermore, despite varying utilities, the optimal screening scenario seems very robust.

Year:

2024

Year:

2023

Year:

2023

Year:

2023

Background: Acculturation is the process of two different cultures coming into contact. It is unclear how acculturation influences Chinese immigrants’ engagement in advance care planning due to the complexity and multifaceted nature of both acculturation and advance care planning. Aims: To synthesize evidence regarding the role of Chinese immigrants’ acculturation in their engagement in advance care planning. Design: Systematic mixed-method review, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021231822). Data sources: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for publications until January 21, 2021. Results: Twenty-one out of 1112 identified articles were included in the analysis. Of those 21 articles, 17 had a qualitative design and 13 originated from the United States. Three of four quantitative studies reported that higher acculturation levels were associated with better knowledge or higher rate of engagement in advance care planning. Analysis of qualitative studies showed that Chinese immigrants’ engagement in advance care planning was associated with their: (1) self-perceived cultural identity (native or non-native); (2) interpretation of filial piety (traditional or modern); and (3) interpretation of autonomy (individual or familial). To facilitate their engagement, Chinese immigrants prefer an implicit approach, non-family-related initiators, contextualization advance care planning in Chinese culture and using Chinese language. Conclusion: Chinese immigrants’ willingness to engage in advance care planning varied with their acculturation level. To engage them in advance care planning, we recommend adapting the introduction of advance care planning to address people’s perceptions of their cultural identity, filial piety, and autonomy, as well as their preference for certain approach, initiator, context, and language.

Year:

2023

Year:

2022

Year:

2022

Year:

2021

Year:

2021

Year:

2021

Collaborators (11)

Mogens Grønvold

Københavns Universitet

DENMARK
View details

Agnes van der Heide

-

NETHERLANDS
View details

Judith AC Rietjens

-

NETHERLANDS
View details

Diah Martina

-

NETHERLANDS
View details

Yudhy Dharmawan

Erasmus University Rotterdam

NETHERLANDS
View details

Sandra Van Dulmen

Radboud University Medical Center

NETHERLANDS
View details

Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen

University of Amsterdam

NETHERLANDS
View details

Lesley Jane Dunleavy

University of Lancaster

UNITED KINGDOM
View details

Rebecca Sudore

Professor

University of California, San Francisco

UNITED STATES
View details

Jan Hendrik Richardus

Erasmus University Rotterdam

NETHERLANDS
View details

Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn

-

NETHERLANDS
View details
ApplyKite TwinLearns as you apply

Make your next move.

Prepare your application

Review drafts before you send them.