Methods: Databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Magiran, SID, IranDoc, and IranMedex were evaluated systematically using the terms "HHI," "psychometric," "validity," "reliability," and related terms (with the use of OR and AND operators) and no restrictions on the year of publication. A total of 13 eligible studies were found published between 1992 and 2018 in the USA, Portugal, Switzerland, Iran, Germany, Petersburg, Japan, the Netherlands, Lima, Peru, and Norway. The methodology used in the available studies included principal component analysis (n = 6), maximum likelihood estimation (n = 5), and principal axis factoring (n = 1). One study did not point the methodology.
Results: Four studies reported the total extracted variances to be less than 50%, six studies reported variance between 50% and 60%, and three papers reported variance that exceeded 60%. Of the papers that examined the factor structure of the HHI, two studies reported a one-factor solution, seven reported two factors, and four reported a three-factor solution. Although the HHI is the most widely translated and psychometrically tested tool in languages other than English, psychometric variations in factor solutions remain inconsistent.
Conclusion: Findings highlight the need for future research that appraises the validity of the HHI in different countries, and how the measure relates to other scales that evaluate hope.
METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued through BRCA mutation testing or routine clinical surveillance (RCS) for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 early-stage breast cancer patients aged 40 years. In the model, patients would decide whether to accept testing and to undertake risk-reducing mastectomy, oophorectomy, tamoxifen, combinations or neither. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the health system perspective. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: In the base case, testing generated 11.2 QALYs over the lifetime and cost US$4815 per patient whereas RCS generated 11.1 QALYs and cost US$4574 per patient. The ICER of US$2725/QALY was below the cost-effective thresholds. The ICER was sensitive to the discounting of cost, cost of BRCA mutation testing and utility of being risk-free, but the ICERs remained below the thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a threshold of US$9500/QALY, 99.9% of simulations favoured BRCA mutation testing over RCS.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering BRCA mutation testing to early-stage breast cancer patients identified using a locally-validated risk-assessment tool may be cost effective compared to RCS in Malaysia.