198 workshops with healthcare professionals would be repeated every five years after the beginning of the study. We did not include the cost of the work hours lost by healthcare professionals during the workshops, because we assumed they could receive accreditation points. These costs were, however, included as a sensitivity analysis. All costs were expressed in 2021 euros (Table 6.1), indexed according to the Dutch consumer price index[39]. SENSITIVITY AND SCENARIO ANALYSES To assess the sensitivity of the results to changes in model assumptions and inputs, we performed sensitivity and scenario analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, all parameters presented in Table 6.1 were varied within their 95%CI in 10,000 iterations[40], based on the pre-specified statistic distributions shown in Table 6.1. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis are presented in a cost-effectiveness plane. In the univariate sensitivity analyses, we repeated the main analysis using the upper or lower bound of the 95%CI of the parameters in Table 6.1, to assess their individual influence on the results. The univariate sensitivity analyses are presented in a tornado diagram, showing the most influential parameters on top of the graph. In the scenario analyses, we assessed how changing various model variables would affect the results, which were considered cost-effective when the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below 80,000 euros/QALY[41,42]. Among the scenario analyses, we included a sample compatible with the general CKD population in the Netherlands, with a lower starting age of 55 years and a suitable distribution of patients in CKD 1/2 and CKD 3/4 stages[43]. Finally, given that the effect on ESRD development was the intervention’s most influential parameter in the univariate sensitivity analyses, we assessed the effect of multiple variations of this parameter on the results.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw