scholarly journals Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in mental health interventions: mapping mental health specific outcome measure GHQ-12 onto EQ-5D-3L

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Lindkvist ◽  
Inna Feldman
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Specific Outcome ◽  
Mental Health Interventions

Cost–utility analysis of public health interventions

2019 ◽  
pp. 177-203
Author(s):  
Rhiannon T. Edwards ◽  
Eira Winrow
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

This chapter builds upon Chapters 2 and 6 by introducing the reader to the history and concepts of health-related quality of life, cost–utility analysis, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and payer thresholds. The aim of this chapter is to outline in more depth the role of applied cost–utility analyses in the economic evaluation of public health interventions. The chapter goes on to reproduce a paper by Owen and colleagues at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom. This paper shows that many public health interventions often have a cost per QALY considerably lower than the £20,000 payer threshold conventionally used by NICE in the United Kingdom.

The Use of Disease-Specific Outcome Measures in Cost-Utility Analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 591-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leida M Lamers ◽  
Carin A Uyl-de Groot ◽  
Ivonne Buijt
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Specific Outcome ◽  
Disease Specific

Cost–consequence analysis of public health interventions

2019 ◽  
pp. 233-247
Author(s):  
Ned Hartfiel ◽  
Rhiannon T. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Consequence Analysis ◽  
Cost Consequence

This chapter opens with a discussion around cost–consequence analysis (CCA) and the UK’s NICE recommendation to use CCA in addition to cost–utility analysis for evaluating public health interventions. CCA is sometimes referred to as a disaggregated approach, because the benefits and costs are not combined in a single ratio such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost–utility analysis. CCA provides a clear descriptive summary for decision-makers that is often easier to interpret than cost-effectiveness, cost–utility, and cost–benefit analysis. The reader or the decision-maker has to form their own opinion concerning the relative importance of costs and outcomes. The chapter offers a case study of CCA by comparing a yoga-based intervention with self-care for managing musculoskeletal conditions in the workplace. The chapter ends with a summary of the principle benefits and major drawbacks of CCA.

scholarly journals Risk-benefit and cost-utility analysis for COVID-19 lockdown in Belgium: the impact on mental health and wellbeing.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederik Feys ◽  
Sam Brokken ◽  
Steven De Peuter
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Net Benefit ◽  
Psychological Burden ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Life Years

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to assess the benefits and risks of a lockdown in Belgium, with focus on mental health. Consequently, projecting the cost effectiveness of remedial measures.METHODS For benefits; in estimating health savings, we compared Belgium (lockdown) and Sweden (lockdown-light) for COVID-19 related deaths, peak intensive care unit load and peak hospitalisations load. We also calculated the years of life lost (YLL). For risks; we assessed the mental health and wellbeing, using the most common dimensions: anxiety and depression. GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were extracted from a survey and compared to a similar representative survey in 2018. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were calculated for and we assessed non-COVID-19 related-deaths from excess mortality. Cost-utility analysis was performed with a 1-year time horizon. Hence, considering the Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs), Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) and the potential impact providing adequate treatment compared to standard care.RESULTS Lockdown versus lockdown-light gave no COVID-19 related benefits. COVID-19 related risks during lockdown saw an increase of 4,231 deaths; 667 extra ICU admissions on peak day, 3213 extra hospital admissions on peak day and 140 extra non-COVID-19 related deaths. Additionally, 140 extra deaths occured due to a non-COVID-19 cause. 1,034,365 (9,0%) of Belgian population reported increased anxiety and/or depression. Risk-benefit analysis; COVID-19 related deaths yielded an extra 3,145 YLL, total psychological burden of 104,515 (74,025-139,762) DALYs and the total loss of societal value is considered between €3.0 billion and €5.6 billion. Cost-utility analysis; ICER for psychological treatment for depression was €11,510/QALY gained. In total psychotherapy could create 181,714 (34,134-213,654) QALYs and a 1 year net benefit of € 5.2 billion.CONCLUSION We found no evidence that a lockdown versus lockdown-light results in less COVID-19 related mortality and morbidity. The Belgian lockdown created an obvious +104,515 (74,025-139,762) DALYs psychological burden in Belgium. Adequate investment in psychological help would provide individual relief and may improve a person’s immunological response. Also, within a 1-year time horizon, taking into account the loss of value in healthy functioning people, the net benefit is €0.9 billion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document