scholarly journals Multifamily Psychoeducation for First-Episode Psychosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 60 (11) ◽  
pp. 1477-1483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. K. Breitborde ◽  
Scott W. Woods ◽  
Vinod H. Srihari
2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 896-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenheck ◽  
Douglas Leslie ◽  
Kyaw Sint ◽  
Haiqun Lin ◽  
Delbert G. Robinson ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 202 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lene Halling Hastrup ◽  
Christian Kronborg ◽  
Mette Bertelsen ◽  
Pia Jeppesen ◽  
Per Jorgensen ◽  
...  

BackgroundInformation about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited.AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment.MethodAn incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken.ResultsThe mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%.ConclusionsThe incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.


2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 1435-1446 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. K. Ising ◽  
F. Smit ◽  
W. Veling ◽  
J. Rietdijk ◽  
S. Dragt ◽  
...  

BackgroundAlthough there is evidence for the effectiveness of interventions for psychosis among ultra-high-risk (UHR) groups, health economic evaluations are lacking. This study aimed to determine the cost effectiveness and cost–utility of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) to prevent first-episode psychosis.MethodThe Dutch Early Detection and Intervention Evaluation study was a randomized controlled trial of 196 UHR patients with an 18-month follow-up. All participants were treated with routine care (RC) for non-psychotic disorders. The experimental group (n = 95) received add-on CBT to prevent first-episode psychosis. We report the intervention, medical and travel costs, as well as costs arising from loss of productivity. Treatment response was defined as psychosis-free survival and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsIn the cost-effectiveness analysis, the proportion of averted psychoses was significantly higher in the CBT condition (89.5% v. 76.2%). CBT showed a 63.7% probability of being more cost effective, because it was less costly than RC by US$844 (£551) per prevented psychosis. In the cost–utility analysis, QALY health gains were slightly higher for CBT than for RC (0.60 v. 0.57) and the CBT intervention had a 52.3% probability of being the superior treatment because, for equal or better QALY gains, the costs of CBT were lower than those of RC.ConclusionsAdd-on preventive CBT for UHR resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of first psychosis. QALY gains show little difference between the two conditions. The CBT intervention proved to be cost saving.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (65) ◽  
pp. 1-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard IG Holt ◽  
Daniel Hind ◽  
Rebecca Gossage-Worrall ◽  
Michael J Bradburn ◽  
David Saxon ◽  
...  

Background Obesity is twice as common in people with schizophrenia as in the general population. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends that people with psychosis or schizophrenia, especially those taking antipsychotics, be offered a healthy eating and physical activity programme by their mental health care provider. There is insufficient evidence to inform how these lifestyle services should be commissioned. Objectives To develop a lifestyle intervention for people with first episode psychosis or schizophrenia and to evaluate its clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, delivery and acceptability. Design A two-arm, analyst-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using web-based randomisation; a mixed-methods process evaluation, including qualitative case study methods and logic modelling; and a cost–utility analysis. Setting Ten community mental health trusts in England. Participants People with first episode psychosis, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Interventions Intervention group: (1) four 2.5-hour group-based structured lifestyle self-management education sessions, 1 week apart; (2) multimodal fortnightly support contacts; (3) three 2.5-hour group booster sessions at 3-monthly intervals, post core sessions. Control group: usual care assessed through a longitudinal survey. All participants received standard written lifestyle information. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was change in weight (kg) at 12 months post randomisation. The key secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 12 months included self-reported nutrition (measured with the Dietary Instrument for Nutrition Education questionnaire), objectively measured physical activity measured by accelerometry [GENEActiv (Activinsights, Kimbolton, UK)], biomedical measures, adverse events, patient-reported outcome measures and a health economic assessment. Results The trial recruited 414 participants (intervention arm: 208 participants; usual care: 206 participants) between 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016. A total of 341 participants (81.6%) completed the trial. A total of 412 participants were analysed. After 12 months, weight change did not differ between the groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% confidence interval –1.59 to 1.67 kg; p = 0.964); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. Glycated haemoglobin, fasting glucose and lipid profile were unchanged by the intervention. Quality of life, psychiatric symptoms and illness perception did not change during the trial. There were three deaths, but none was related to the intervention. Most adverse events were expected and related to the psychiatric illness. The process evaluation showed that the intervention was acceptable, with participants valuing the opportunity to interact with others facing similar challenges. Session feedback indicated that 87.2% of participants agreed that the sessions had met their needs. Some indicated the desire for more ongoing support. Professionals felt that the intervention was under-resourced and questioned the long-term sustainability within current NHS settings. Professionals would have preferred greater access to participants’ behaviour data to tailor the intervention better. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the health-care perspective is £246,921 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the societal perspective is £367,543 per QALY gained. Conclusions Despite the challenges of undertaking clinical research in this population, the trial successfully recruited and retained participants, indicating a high level of interest in weight management interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Further research will be required to define how overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia should be managed. The trial results suggest that lifestyle programmes for people with schizophrenia may need greater resourcing than for other populations, and interventions that have been shown to be effective in other populations, such as people with diabetes mellitus, are not necessarily effective in people with schizophrenia. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19447796. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2019 ◽  
Vol 215 (01) ◽  
pp. 386-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenheck

SummaryEarly intervention in psychosis has generated hope. Cost-effectiveness studies, to determine whether benefits exceed costs, thus far conclude only that early intervention ‘might be’ worth its costs. It is a testament to the importance of the question: even in the absence of conclusive data, a synthesis should be attempted.Declaration of interestNone.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document