Ida J. Korfage
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In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEAs).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
Agnes van der Heide
-
Judith AC Rietjens
-
Diah Martina
-
Yudhy Dharmawan
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Sandra Van Dulmen
Radboud University Medical Center
Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen
University of Amsterdam
Lesley Jane Dunleavy
University of Lancaster
Rebecca Sudore
Professor
University of California, San Francisco
Jan Hendrik Richardus
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn
-
Make your next move.
Prepare your application
Review drafts before you send them.