Cost-effectiveness of alternative changes to a national blood collection service

S. Willis; K. De Corte; J. A. Cairns; M. Zia Sadique; N. Hawkins; M. Pennington; G. Cho; D. J. Roberts; G. Miflin; R. Grieve

doi:10.1111/tme.12537

Cost-effectiveness of alternative changes to a national blood collection service

S. Willis, K. De Corte, J. A. Cairns, M. Zia Sadique, N. Hawkins, M. Pennington, G. Cho, D. J. Roberts, G. Miflin, R. Grieve^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of changing opening times, introducing a donor health report and reducing the minimum inter-donation interval for donors attending static centres. Background: Evidence is required about the effect of changes to the blood collection service on costs and the frequency of donation. Methods/Materials: This study estimated the effect of changes to the blood collection service in England on the annual number of whole-blood donations by current donors. We used donors' responses to a stated preference survey, donor registry data on donation frequency and deferral rates from the INTERVAL trial. Costs measured were those anticipated to differ between strategies. We reported the cost per additional unit of blood collected for each strategy versus current practice. Strategies with a cost per additional unit of whole blood less than £30 (an estimate of the current cost of collection) were judged likely to be cost-effective. Results: In static donor centres, extending opening times to evenings and weekends provided an additional unit of whole blood at a cost of £23 and £29, respectively. Introducing a health report cost £130 per additional unit of blood collected. Although the strategy of reducing the minimum inter-donation interval had the lowest cost per additional unit of blood collected (£10), this increased the rate of deferrals due to low haemoglobin (Hb). Conclusion: The introduction of a donor health report is unlikely to provide a sufficient increase in donation frequency to justify the additional costs. A more cost-effective change is to extend opening hours for blood collection at static centres.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	42-51
Number of pages	10
Journal	Transfusion Medicine
Volume	29
Issue number	S1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.12537
Publication status	Published - Apr 2019
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research (ref HS&DR – 13/54/62). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors made the following contributions to the paper: J. A. C., R. G., N. H., G. M., D. J. R. and M. P. designed the overall research study; G. C., G. M., K. D. C., M. Z. S. and S. W. contributed to the design of the study; K. D. C., J. A. C., R. G., N. H., M. Z. S. and S. W. performed the research; K. D. C., M. S. Z. and S. W. analysed the data; R. G. and S. W. draf ted the paper. All authors contributed to the critical revision of the paper. The authors acknowledge the input from others in the HEMO team, particularly Silvia Perra, Jennifer Turner and the study advisory group. We also thank all the INTERVAL investigators, especially Carmel Moore, Stephen Kaptoge and NHSBT, and at NHSBT, we thank Laura Honto-ria del Hoyo, Catharina Koppitz, Gareth Humphries, Varshini Parayoganathan and Crispin Wickenden for their help.

Funding Information:
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research (ref HS&DR—13/54/62). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors made the following contributions to the paper: J. A. C., R. G., N. H., G. M., D. J. R. and M. P. designed the overall research study; G. C., G. M., K. D. C., M. Z. S. and S. W. contributed to the design of the study; K. D. C., J. A. C., R. G., N. H., M. Z. S. and S. W. performed the research; K. D. C., M. S. Z. and S. W. analysed the data; R. G. and S. W. drafted the paper. All authors contributed to the critical revision of the paper. The authors acknowledge the input from others in the HEMO team, particularly Silvia Perra, Jennifer Turner and the study advisory group. We also thank all the INTERVAL investigators, especially Carmel Moore, Stephen Kaptoge and NHSBT, and at NHSBT, we thank Laura Hontoria del Hoyo, Catharina Koppitz, Gareth Humphries, Varshini Parayoganathan and Crispin Wickenden for their help.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Authors. Transfusion Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Blood Transfusion Society

Keywords

blood donation
cost-effectiveness analysis
stated preferences

Access to Document

10.1111/tme.12537

Cite this

@article{00c960ad59ef45b9b6a50184c5b6fcf6,

title = "Cost-effectiveness of alternative changes to a national blood collection service",

abstract = "Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of changing opening times, introducing a donor health report and reducing the minimum inter-donation interval for donors attending static centres. Background: Evidence is required about the effect of changes to the blood collection service on costs and the frequency of donation. Methods/Materials: This study estimated the effect of changes to the blood collection service in England on the annual number of whole-blood donations by current donors. We used donors' responses to a stated preference survey, donor registry data on donation frequency and deferral rates from the INTERVAL trial. Costs measured were those anticipated to differ between strategies. We reported the cost per additional unit of blood collected for each strategy versus current practice. Strategies with a cost per additional unit of whole blood less than £30 (an estimate of the current cost of collection) were judged likely to be cost-effective. Results: In static donor centres, extending opening times to evenings and weekends provided an additional unit of whole blood at a cost of £23 and £29, respectively. Introducing a health report cost £130 per additional unit of blood collected. Although the strategy of reducing the minimum inter-donation interval had the lowest cost per additional unit of blood collected (£10), this increased the rate of deferrals due to low haemoglobin (Hb). Conclusion: The introduction of a donor health report is unlikely to provide a sufficient increase in donation frequency to justify the additional costs. A more cost-effective change is to extend opening hours for blood collection at static centres.",

keywords = "blood donation, cost-effectiveness analysis, stated preferences",

author = "S. Willis and {De Corte}, K. and Cairns, {J. A.} and {Zia Sadique}, M. and N. Hawkins and M. Pennington and G. Cho and Roberts, {D. J.} and G. Miflin and R. Grieve",

note = "Funding Information: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research (ref HS&DR – 13/54/62). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors made the following contributions to the paper: J. A. C., R. G., N. H., G. M., D. J. R. and M. P. designed the overall research study; G. C., G. M., K. D. C., M. Z. S. and S. W. contributed to the design of the study; K. D. C., J. A. C., R. G., N. H., M. Z. S. and S. W. performed the research; K. D. C., M. S. Z. and S. W. analysed the data; R. G. and S. W. draf ted the paper. All authors contributed to the critical revision of the paper. The authors acknowledge the input from others in the HEMO team, particularly Silvia Perra, Jennifer Turner and the study advisory group. We also thank all the INTERVAL investigators, especially Carmel Moore, Stephen Kaptoge and NHSBT, and at NHSBT, we thank Laura Honto-ria del Hoyo, Catharina Koppitz, Gareth Humphries, Varshini Parayoganathan and Crispin Wickenden for their help. Funding Information: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research (ref HS&DR—13/54/62). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors made the following contributions to the paper: J. A. C., R. G., N. H., G. M., D. J. R. and M. P. designed the overall research study; G. C., G. M., K. D. C., M. Z. S. and S. W. contributed to the design of the study; K. D. C., J. A. C., R. G., N. H., M. Z. S. and S. W. performed the research; K. D. C., M. S. Z. and S. W. analysed the data; R. G. and S. W. drafted the paper. All authors contributed to the critical revision of the paper. The authors acknowledge the input from others in the HEMO team, particularly Silvia Perra, Jennifer Turner and the study advisory group. We also thank all the INTERVAL investigators, especially Carmel Moore, Stephen Kaptoge and NHSBT, and at NHSBT, we thank Laura Hontoria del Hoyo, Catharina Koppitz, Gareth Humphries, Varshini Parayoganathan and Crispin Wickenden for their help. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 The Authors. Transfusion Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Blood Transfusion Society",

year = "2019",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1111/tme.12537",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "42--51",

journal = "Transfusion Medicine",

issn = "0958-7578",

publisher = "wiley",

number = "S1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of alternative changes to a national blood collection service

AU - Willis, S.

AU - De Corte, K.

AU - Cairns, J. A.

AU - Zia Sadique, M.

AU - Hawkins, N.

AU - Pennington, M.

AU - Cho, G.

AU - Roberts, D. J.

AU - Miflin, G.

AU - Grieve, R.

N1 - Funding Information: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research (ref HS&DR – 13/54/62). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors made the following contributions to the paper: J. A. C., R. G., N. H., G. M., D. J. R. and M. P. designed the overall research study; G. C., G. M., K. D. C., M. Z. S. and S. W. contributed to the design of the study; K. D. C., J. A. C., R. G., N. H., M. Z. S. and S. W. performed the research; K. D. C., M. S. Z. and S. W. analysed the data; R. G. and S. W. draf ted the paper. All authors contributed to the critical revision of the paper. The authors acknowledge the input from others in the HEMO team, particularly Silvia Perra, Jennifer Turner and the study advisory group. We also thank all the INTERVAL investigators, especially Carmel Moore, Stephen Kaptoge and NHSBT, and at NHSBT, we thank Laura Honto-ria del Hoyo, Catharina Koppitz, Gareth Humphries, Varshini Parayoganathan and Crispin Wickenden for their help. Funding Information: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research (ref HS&DR—13/54/62). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The authors made the following contributions to the paper: J. A. C., R. G., N. H., G. M., D. J. R. and M. P. designed the overall research study; G. C., G. M., K. D. C., M. Z. S. and S. W. contributed to the design of the study; K. D. C., J. A. C., R. G., N. H., M. Z. S. and S. W. performed the research; K. D. C., M. S. Z. and S. W. analysed the data; R. G. and S. W. drafted the paper. All authors contributed to the critical revision of the paper. The authors acknowledge the input from others in the HEMO team, particularly Silvia Perra, Jennifer Turner and the study advisory group. We also thank all the INTERVAL investigators, especially Carmel Moore, Stephen Kaptoge and NHSBT, and at NHSBT, we thank Laura Hontoria del Hoyo, Catharina Koppitz, Gareth Humphries, Varshini Parayoganathan and Crispin Wickenden for their help. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The Authors. Transfusion Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Blood Transfusion Society

PY - 2019/4

Y1 - 2019/4

N2 - Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of changing opening times, introducing a donor health report and reducing the minimum inter-donation interval for donors attending static centres. Background: Evidence is required about the effect of changes to the blood collection service on costs and the frequency of donation. Methods/Materials: This study estimated the effect of changes to the blood collection service in England on the annual number of whole-blood donations by current donors. We used donors' responses to a stated preference survey, donor registry data on donation frequency and deferral rates from the INTERVAL trial. Costs measured were those anticipated to differ between strategies. We reported the cost per additional unit of blood collected for each strategy versus current practice. Strategies with a cost per additional unit of whole blood less than £30 (an estimate of the current cost of collection) were judged likely to be cost-effective. Results: In static donor centres, extending opening times to evenings and weekends provided an additional unit of whole blood at a cost of £23 and £29, respectively. Introducing a health report cost £130 per additional unit of blood collected. Although the strategy of reducing the minimum inter-donation interval had the lowest cost per additional unit of blood collected (£10), this increased the rate of deferrals due to low haemoglobin (Hb). Conclusion: The introduction of a donor health report is unlikely to provide a sufficient increase in donation frequency to justify the additional costs. A more cost-effective change is to extend opening hours for blood collection at static centres.

AB - Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of changing opening times, introducing a donor health report and reducing the minimum inter-donation interval for donors attending static centres. Background: Evidence is required about the effect of changes to the blood collection service on costs and the frequency of donation. Methods/Materials: This study estimated the effect of changes to the blood collection service in England on the annual number of whole-blood donations by current donors. We used donors' responses to a stated preference survey, donor registry data on donation frequency and deferral rates from the INTERVAL trial. Costs measured were those anticipated to differ between strategies. We reported the cost per additional unit of blood collected for each strategy versus current practice. Strategies with a cost per additional unit of whole blood less than £30 (an estimate of the current cost of collection) were judged likely to be cost-effective. Results: In static donor centres, extending opening times to evenings and weekends provided an additional unit of whole blood at a cost of £23 and £29, respectively. Introducing a health report cost £130 per additional unit of blood collected. Although the strategy of reducing the minimum inter-donation interval had the lowest cost per additional unit of blood collected (£10), this increased the rate of deferrals due to low haemoglobin (Hb). Conclusion: The introduction of a donor health report is unlikely to provide a sufficient increase in donation frequency to justify the additional costs. A more cost-effective change is to extend opening hours for blood collection at static centres.

KW - blood donation

KW - cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - stated preferences

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064216990&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/tme.12537

DO - 10.1111/tme.12537

M3 - Article

C2 - 29767450

AN - SCOPUS:85064216990

SN - 0958-7578

VL - 29

SP - 42

EP - 51

JO - Transfusion Medicine

JF - Transfusion Medicine

IS - S1

ER -

Cost-effectiveness of alternative changes to a national blood collection service

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this