scholarly journals Exploring the cost-effectiveness of a Dutch collaborative stepped care intervention for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety when adapted to the Australian context: a model-based cost-utility analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Y. Lee ◽  
M. G. Harris ◽  
H. A. Whiteford ◽  
S. K. Davidson ◽  
M. L. Chatterton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Australian Context ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Aims Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental health conditions treated in primary care. They frequently co-occur and involve recommended treatments that overlap. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) shows specific stepped care interventions to be cost-effective in improving symptom remission. However, most RCTs have focused on either depression or anxiety, which limits their generalisability to routine primary care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative stepped care (CSC) intervention to treat depression and/or anxiety among adults in Australian primary care settings. Method A quasi-decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CSC intervention relative to care-as-usual (CAU). The model adapted a CSC intervention described in a previous Dutch RCT to the Australian context. This 8-month, cluster RCT recruited patients with depression and/or anxiety (n = 158) from 30 primary care clinics in the Netherlands. The CSC intervention involved two steps: (1) guided self-help with a nurse at a primary care clinic; and (2) referral to specialised mental healthcare. The cost-effectiveness model adopted a health sector perspective and synthesised data from two main sources: RCT data on intervention pathways, remission probabilities and healthcare service utilisation; and Australia-specific data on demography, epidemiology and unit costs from external sources. Incremental costs and incremental health outcomes were estimated across a 1-year time horizon. Health outcomes were measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to remitted cases of depression and/or anxiety. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured in 2019 Australian dollars (A$) per DALY averted. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness findings. Result The CSC intervention had a high probability (99.6%) of being cost-effective relative to CAU. The resulting ICER (A$5207/DALY; 95% uncertainty interval: dominant to 25 345) fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50 000/DALY. ICERs were robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Conclusions This study found that a Dutch CSC intervention, with nurse-delivered guided self-help treatment as a first step, could potentially be cost-effective in treating depression and/or anxiety if transferred to the Australian primary care context. However, adaptations may be required to ensure feasibility and acceptability in the Australian healthcare context. In addition, further evidence is needed to verify the real-world cost-effectiveness of the CSC intervention when implemented in routine practice and to evaluate its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness when compared to other viable stepped care interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of computerized cognitive–behavioural therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: findings from the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 1825-1835 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Duarte ◽  
S. Walker ◽  
E. Littlewood ◽  
S. Brabyn ◽  
C. Hewitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Gp Care ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundComputerized cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) forms a core component of stepped psychological care for depression. Existing evidence for cCBT has been informed by developer-led trials. This is the first study based on a large independent pragmatic trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care compared with usual GP care alone and to establish the differential cost-effectiveness of a free-to-use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in comparison with a commercial programme (Beating the Blues) in primary care.MethodCosts were estimated from a healthcare perspective and outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of each cCBT programme was compared with usual GP care. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results.ResultsNeither cCBT programme was found to be cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. At a £20 000 per QALY threshold, usual GP care alone had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.55) followed by MoodGYM (0.42) and Beating the Blues (0.04). Usual GP care alone was also the cost-effective intervention in the majority of scenario analyses. However, the magnitude of the differences in costs and QALYs between all groups appeared minor (and non-significant).ConclusionsTechnically supported cCBT programmes do not appear any more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. No cost-effective advantage of the commercially developed cCBT programme was evident compared with the free-to-use cCBT programme. Current UK practice recommendations for cCBT may need to be reconsidered in the light of the results.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3-month vs. 28-day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (78) ◽  
pp. 1-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Miani ◽  
Adam Martin ◽  
Josephine Exley ◽  
Brett Doble ◽  
Ed Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Study ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Studies ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundTo reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care.Design/data sourcesThe design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios.Review methodsIn the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available.ResultsAn exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference –0.45, 95% confidence interval –0.65 to –0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years.LimitationsThe available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy.ConclusionsAlthough the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care.Future workThere is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

How cost-effective is nutrition care delivered in primary healthcare settings? A systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelyn A Barnes ◽  
Zoe Szewczyk ◽  
Jaimon T Kelly ◽  
Katrina L Campbell ◽  
Lauren E Ball
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Nutrition Care ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Context Nutrition care is an effective lifestyle intervention for the treatment and prevention of many noncommunicable diseases. Primary care is a high-value setting in which to provide nutrition care. Objective The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nutrition care interventions provided in primary care settings. Data Sources Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to May 2021. Data Extraction Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guidelines. Randomized trials of nutrition interventions in primary care settings were included in the analysis if incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. The main outcome variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and reported interpretations were used to categorize interventions by the cost-effectiveness plane quadrant. Results Of 6837 articles identified, 10 were included (representing 9 studies). Eight of the 9 included studies found nutrition care in primary care settings to be more costly and more effective than usual care . High study heterogeneity limited further conclusions. Conclusion Nutrition care in primary care settings is effective, though it requires investment; it should, therefore, be considered in primary care planning. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of providing nutrition care in primary care settings. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020201146.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Screening Strategies Among Adolescents and Young Adults in Primary Care Settings

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Assoumou ◽  
Abriana Tasillo ◽  
Jared A. Leff ◽  
Bruce R. Shackman ◽  
Mari-Lynn Drainoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Adolescents And Young Adults ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention to prevent depression and anxiety in late life: randomised trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petronella van't Veer-Tazelaar ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Hein van Hout ◽  
Patricia van Oppen ◽  
Henriette van der Horst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Preventive Intervention ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Care Programme ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThere is an urgent need for the development of cost-effective preventive strategies to reduce the onset of mental disorders.AimsTo establish the cost-effectiveness of a stepped care preventive intervention for depression and anxiety disorders in older people at high risk of these conditions, compared with routine primary care.MethodAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN26474556). Consenting individuals presenting with subthreshold levels of depressive or anxiety symptoms were randomly assigned to a preventive stepped care programme (n = 86) or to routine primary care (n = 84).ResultsThe intervention was successful in halving the incidence rate of depression and anxiety at €563 (£412) per recipient and €4367 (£3196) per disorder-free year gained, compared with routine primary care. The latter would represent good value for money if the willingness to pay for a disorder-free year is at least €5000.ConclusionsThe prevention programme generated depression- and anxiety-free survival years in the older population at affordable cost.

Cost-effectiveness of Diabetes Self-management Programs in Community Primary Care Settings

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 761-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol A. Brownson ◽  
Thomas J. Hoerger ◽  
Edwin B. Fisher ◽  
Kerry E. Kilpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Simulation Model ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Systems Perspective ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Purpose The purpose of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of diabetes self-management programs in real-world community primary care settings. Estimates incorporated lifetime reductions in disease progression, costs of adverse events, and increases in quality of life. Methods Clinical results and costs were based on programs of the Diabetes Initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, implemented in primary care and community settings in disadvantaged areas with notable health disparities. Program results were used as inputs to a Markov simulation model to estimate the long-term effects of self-management interventions. A health systems perspective was adopted. Results The simulation model estimates that the intervention does reduce discounted lifetime treatment and complication costs by $3385, but this is more than offset by the $15 031 cost of implementing the intervention and maintaining its effects in subsequent years. The intervention is estimated to reduce long-term complications, leading to an increase in remaining life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $39 563/QALY, well below a common benchmark of $50 000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model’s estimates under various alternative assumptions. The model generally predicts acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios. Conclusions Self-management programs for type 2 diabetes are cost-effective from a health systems perspective when the cost savings due to reductions in long-term complications are recognized. These findings may justify increased reimbursement for effective self-management programs in diverse settings.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Birth-Cohort Screening for Hepatitis C Antibody in U.S. Primary Care Settings

2012 ◽  
Vol 156 (4) ◽  
pp. 263 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Rein ◽  
Bryce D. Smith ◽  
John S. Wittenborn ◽  
Sarah B. Lesesne ◽  
Laura D. Wagner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Birth Cohort ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Sertraline in Primary Care According to Initial Severity and Duration of Depressive Symptoms: Findings from the PANDA RCT

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Hollingworth ◽  
◽  
Christopher G. Fawsitt ◽  
Padraig Dixon ◽  
Larisa Duffy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Symptom Severity ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Net Benefits ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for depression, but it is unclear whether treatment efficacy depends on severity and duration of symptoms and how prescribing might be targeted cost-effectively. Objectives We investigated the cost-effectiveness of the antidepressant sertraline compared with placebo in subgroups defined by severity and duration of depressive symptoms. Methods We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the NHS and Personal and Social Services (PSS) in the UK alongside the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressants that will leAd to a clinical benefit?) randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared sertraline with placebo over a 12-week period. Quality of life data were collected at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks post-randomisation using EQ-5D-5L, from which we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs (in 2017/18£) were collected using patient records and from resource use questionnaires administered at each follow-up interval. Differences in mean costs and mean QALYs and net monetary benefits were estimated. Our primary analysis used net monetary benefit regressions to identify any interaction between the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and subgroups defined by baseline symptom severity (0–11; 12–19; 20+ on the Clinical Interview Schedule—Revised) and, separately, duration of symptoms (greater or less than 2 years duration). A secondary analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of sertraline versus placebo, irrespective of duration or severity. Results There was no evidence of an association between the baseline severity of depressive symptoms and the cost-effectiveness of sertraline. Compared to patients with low symptom severity, the expected net benefits in patients with moderate symptoms were £24 (95% CI − £280 to £328; p value 0.876) and the expected net benefits in patients with high symptom severity were £37 (95% CI − £221 to £296; p value 0.776). Patients who had a longer history of depressive symptoms at baseline had lower expected net benefits from sertraline than those with a shorter history; however, the difference was uncertain (− £27 [95% CI − £258 to £204]; p value 0.817). In the secondary analysis, patients treated with sertraline had higher expected net benefits (£122 [95% CI £18 to £226]; p value 0.101) than those in the placebo group. Sertraline had a high probability (> 95%) of being cost-effective if the health system was willing to pay at least £20,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions We found insufficient evidence of a prespecified threshold based on severity or symptom duration that GPs could use to target prescribing to a subgroup of patients where sertraline is most cost-effective. Sertraline is probably a cost-effective treatment for depressive symptoms in UK primary care. Trial Registration Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document