Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor
BC Cancer Agency
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor.
Pharmacy World & Science | 2005
Andrea Liekweg; Meike Eckhardt; Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor; Edgar Erdfelder; Ulrich Jaehde
Objective: Pharmaceutical care follows a needs-based approach. Cancer patients form a group with particular needs. Information about cancer treatment plays an important role in terms of coping strategies, initiation of self-care behaviour, and quality of life. In order to develop pharmaceutical care strategies for cancer patients, it is important to assess patients’ information needs. This survey aims at providing a suitable instrument to measure patient satisfaction with information on cancer treatment and to reveal the present situation in Germany.Methods: Since there was no suitable German measure available, the Canadian ‘Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Treatment Education (PS-CaTE) questionnaire’ was translated into German and its test quality criteria were examined. Selected socio-demographic variables were added to the original version of the questionnaire to facilitate subgroup analysis. A pre-test was performed to assess the reliability of the adapted instrument.The questionnaire was distributed among patients of cooperating hospitals, oncology practices, and self-aid groups over Germany.Results: The pre-test established a good reliability of the instrument. In the main survey, overall satisfaction, on a 5- point Likert scale, showed a median score of 3.5, where 5 represented the highest degree of satisfaction. A subscale analysis revealed that satisfaction with information provided on adverse events and complementary treatment options was lower compared to the information provided on cancer treatment. A stepwise multiple-regression analysis identified three significant predictors of satisfaction: a) diagnosis of a mammary carcinoma; b) recent diagnosis; and c) treatment by a primary-care oncologist. Patients with a mammary carcinoma and patients treated by a primary-care oncologist were less satisfied, and patients with a recent diagnosis were more satisfied compared to other patients. In comparison to other information sources, pharmacists still seem to play a minor role as a source of information for patients.Conclusions: The version of the questionnaire with a total of 14 items seems to be suitable for measuring patient satisfaction with information. Additional research is needed to further verify the validity of the instrument. The questionnaire may help pharmaceutical-care providers to develop needs-based information strategies. The assessment of patient satisfaction can contribute to the outcome evaluation of pharmaceutical care. The fact that pharmacists are not yet being recognised by most patients as a source of information should support an intensified and more active offer of care by the pharmacist.
Lung Cancer | 2012
Ian Cromwell; Kimberly van der Hoek; Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor; Barbara Melosky; Stuart Peacock
UNLABELLED Erlotinib has been approved as a third-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in British Columbia (BC). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare costs and effectiveness in patients who received third-line erlotinib to those in a historical patient cohort that would have been eligible had erlotinib been available. METHODS In a population of patients who have been treated with drugs for advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS), progression-to-death survival (PTD) and probability of survival one year after end of second-line (1YS) were determined using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Costs were collected retrospectively from the perspective of the BC health care system. RESULTS Incremental mean OS was 90 days (0.25 LYG), and incremental mean cost was
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice | 2008
Vincent H Mabasa; Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor; Christina Cy Chu; Veronika Moravan; Karissa Johnston; Stuart Peacock; Meg Knowling
11,102 (CDN 2009), resulting in a mean ICER of
Value in Health | 2012
Nicole Mittmann; William K. Evans; Angela Rocchi; Christopher J. Longo; Heather-Jane Au; Don Husereau; N. Leighl; Pierre K. Isogai; Murray Krahn; Stuart Peacock; Deborah A. Marshall; Doug Coyle; Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor; Philip Jacobs; Paul Oh
36,838/LYG. Univariate sensitivity analysis yielded ICERs ranging from
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice | 2008
Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor; Mário L de Lemos; Dennis Jang; Juliana Man; Dawn Annable; Saira Mithani; Leela John; Thanh Vu; Robin K. O'brien
21,300 to
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice | 2006
Vincent H Mabasa; Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor
51,700/LYG. CONCLUSION Our analysis suggests that erlotinib may be an effective and cost-effective third-line treatment for advanced NSCLC compared to best supportive care.
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice | 2006
Mário L de Lemos; Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor; Jeff Barnett; F. Hu; Adeera Levin; Veronika Moravan; Susan E. O'Reilly
Background. This cost-effectiveness analysis of imatinib in British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA) patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) was performed to justify funding. Patients and Methods. A pragmatic, retrospective review identified BCCA patients with advanced GIST who received imatinib or historical treatment during successive, pre-specified time periods. Primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness (CE) of imatinib based on median overall survival (MOS). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness based on median progression-free survival (PFS) and comparison to literature efficacy. This study took the BCCA perspective. Sensitivity analyses varying effectiveness over the 95% confidence interval (CI), cost to its extremes, discounting level at 0, 3, and 5%, and substituting life expectancy for MOS were performed. Results. Forty-six and 47 patients in the imatinib and historical groups respectively showed MOS with imatinib to be 66.7 months (95%CI 61.7— infinity) compared to 7.7 (95%CI 6.0—12.6) in the historical group. Median-PFS were 45.3 months (95%CI 24.4—infinity) and 5.6 (95%CI 3.5—8.5) respectively. Imatinib effectiveness was similar to literature reports. The annual incremental CE ratio for imatinib was
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice | 1998
Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor
15,882 CDN per median life year gained and
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice | 2002
Kelly S C Lo; Amneet K Aulakh; Keith S Gingerich; Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor
23,603 CDN per median year of PFS. Conclusions. Imatinib for advanced GIST seems cost-effective in BC. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2008) 14: 105—112.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2004
Suzanne C. Malfair Taylor; M. de Lemos; Jeff Barnett; F. Hu; Susan E. O'Reilly
OBJECTIVE Specific methodological challenges are often encountered during cancer-related economic evaluations. The objective of this study was to provide specific guidance to analysts on the methods for the conduct of high-quality economic evaluations in oncology by building on the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies (third edition). METHODS Fifteen oncologists, health economists, health services researchers, and decision makers from across Canada identified sections in Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health guidelines that would benefit from oncology-specific guidance. Fifteen sections of the guidelines were reviewed to determine whether 1) Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health guidelines were sufficient for the conduct of oncology economic evaluations without further guidance specific for oncology products or 2) additional guidance was necessary. A scoping review was conducted by using a comprehensive and replicable search to identify relevant literature to inform recommendations. Recommendations were reviewed by representatives of academia, government, and the pharmaceutical industry in an iterative and formal review of the recommendations. RESULTS Major adaptations for guidance related to time horizon, effectiveness, modeling, costs, and resources were required. Recommendations around the use of final outcomes over intermediate outcomes to calculate quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained, the type of evidence, the source of evidence, and the use of time horizon and modeling were made. CONCLUSIONS This article summarizes key recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in oncology and describes methods required to ensure that economic assessments in oncology are conducted in a standardized manner.