Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-01T21:06:18.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyzing multiple learning effects in health care using multilevel modeling: Application to radiotherapy at an early stage of innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2009

Magali Morelle ,
Raphaël Remonnay ,
Philippe Giraud  and
Marie-Odile Carrère
Magali Morelle
Affiliation:
University of Lyon; CNRS UMR 5824–GATE, Ecully; ENS LSH; Centre Léon Bérard
Raphaël Remonnay
Affiliation:
University of Lyon; CNRS UMR 5824–GATE, Ecully; ENS LSH; Centre Léon Bérard
Philippe Giraud
Affiliation:
Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou and University Paris V
Marie-Odile Carrère
Affiliation:
University of Lyon; CNRS UMR 5824–GATE, Ecully; ENS LSH; Centre Léon Bérard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Learning effects may have considerable influence on the performance of new health technologies, thereby on cost-effectiveness and ultimately on resource allocation. In the area of radiotherapy, equipment is becoming increasingly costly and the analysis of learning effects is complex given that sequential treatments are necessary, with multiple sessions for each patient. Our study aimed at analyzing learning effects in radiotherapy at an early stage of innovation.

Methods: We used multilevel analysis to separate out the different learning effects of the new technique. Statistical analysis of observational data collected in a French National prospective survey was performed using an individual growth model. Intrapatient learning was modeled at level 1, and two types of interpatient learning were considered at level 2, regarding possible influences of professional experience on (i) the duration of each patient's first session in a given setting and (ii) the rate of change of session duration over time for a given patient. Conventional radiotherapy was also considered for comparison.

Results: Our results demonstrate a substantial type-1 interpatient learning effect and an even higher intrapatient learning effect. No type-2 interpatient learning was at work: professional experience did not impact intrapatient learning. Moreover, some intrapatient learning was also reported with conventional radiotherapy and was not significantly modified by innovation. Session duration was in any case strongly influenced by disease.

Conclusions: Because professionals highly underestimated the learning phenomenon, assessment of learning cannot be based on professional statements and it requires careful analysis of observational data.

Keywords

Multilevel modelingLearning effectsInnovationRadiotherapy
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 232 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Amalric, F. Analyse économique des coûts du cancer en France. Boulogne-Billancourt: Institut National du Cancer; 2007.Google Scholar
2. Bonastre, J, Noel, E, Chevalier, J et al. , Implications of learning effects for hospital costs of new health technologies: The case of intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:248–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Cook, JA, Ramsay, CR, Fayers, P. Statistical evaluation of learning curve effects in surgical trials. Clin Trials. 2004;1:421–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Cook, JA, Ramsay, CR, Fayers, P. Using the literature to quantify the learning curve: A case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:255–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Giraud, P, Reboul, F, Clippe, S et al. , Respiration-gated radiotherapy: Current techniques and potential benefits. Cancer Radiother. 2003;7 (Suppl 1):15s–25sGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Hanley, J, Debois, MM, Mah, D et al. , Deep inspiration breath-hold technique for lung tumors: The potential value of target immobilization and reduced lung density in dose escalation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:603–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Hox, J. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. London: Routledge; 2003.Google Scholar
8. Ohara, K, Okumura, T, Akisada, M et al. , Irradiation synchronized with respiration gate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989;17:853–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Pedersen, A, Korreman, S, Nyström, H, Specht, L. Efficacy of respiratory gated radiotherapy of breast cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2002;64 (Suppl 1):S142.Google Scholar
10. Ramsay, CR, Grant, AM, Wallace, SA et al. , Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Remouchamps, VM, Vicini, FA, Sharpe, MB et al. , Significant reductions in heart and lung doses using deep inspiration breath hold with active breathing control and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for patients treated with locoregional breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:392–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Rosenzweig, KE, Hanley, J, Mah, D et al. , The deep inspiration breath-hold technique in the treatment of inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48:81–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Simon, L, Giraud, P, Dumas, JL et al. , Practical recommendations for breathing-adapted radiotherapy. Cancer Radiother. 2007;11:214–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Singer, J, Willett, J. Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar