Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a care manager (CM) programme compared with care as usual (CAU) for treatment of depression at primary care centres (PCCs) from a healthcare as well as societal perspective.

Design

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

Setting

23 PCCs in two Swedish regions.

Participants

Patients with depression (n=342).

Main outcome measures

A cost-effectiveness analysis was applied on a cluster randomised trial at PCC level where patients with depression had 3 months of contact with a CM (11 intervention PCCs, n=163) or CAU (12 control PCCs, n=179), with follow-up 3 and 6 months. Effectiveness measures were based on the number of depression-free days (DFDs) calculated from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: ∆Cost/∆QALY and ∆Cost/∆DFD. Sampling uncertainty was assessed based on non-parametric bootstrapping.

Results

Health benefits were higher in intervention group compared with CAU group: QALYs (0.357 vs 0.333, p<0.001) and DFD reduction of depressive symptom score (79.43 vs 60.14, p<0.001). The mean costs per patient for the 6-month period were €368 (healthcare perspective) and €6217 (societal perspective) for the intervention patients and €246 (healthcare perspective) and €7371 (societal perspective) for the control patients (n.s.). The cost per QALY gained was €6773 (healthcare perspective) and from a societal perspective the CM programme was dominant.

Discussion

The CM programme was associated with a gain in QALYs as well as in DFD, while also being cost saving compared with CAU from a societal perspective. This result is of high relevance for decision-makers on a national level, but it must be observed that a CM programme for depression implies increased costs at the primary care level.

Trial registration number

NCT02378272; Results.

SUBMITTER: Holst A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6252772 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled study.

Holst Anna A Ginter Annika A Björkelund Cecilia C Hange Dominique D Petersson Eva-Lisa EL Svenningsson Irene I Westman Jeanette J André Malin M Wikberg Carl C Wallin Lars L Möller Christina C Svensson Mikael M

BMJ open 20181112 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a care manager (CM) programme compared with care as usual (CAU) for treatment of depression at primary care centres (PCCs) from a healthcare as well as societal perspective.<h4>Design</h4>Cost-effectiveness analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>23 PCCs in two Swedish regions.<h4>Participants</h4>Patients with depression (n=342).<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>A cost-effectiveness analysis was applied on a cluster randomised trial at PCC level where patien ...[more]

PMID: 30420353

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo study the cost-effectiveness of a care manager organization for patients with mild to moderate depression in Swedish primary care in a 12-month perspective.MethodsCost-effectiveness analysis of the care manager organization compared to care as usual (CAU) in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial including 192 individuals in the care manager group and 184 in the CAU group. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a health care and societal perspectives. Costs were assessed in relation to two different health outcome measures: depression free days (DFDs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).ResultsAt the 12-month follow-up, patients treated at the intervention Primary Care Centres (PCCs) with a care manager organization had larger health benefits than the group receiving usual care only at control PCCs. Mean QALY per patient was 0.73 (95% CI 0.7; 0.75) in the care manager group compared to 0.70 (95% CI 0.66; 0.73) in the CAU group. Mean DFDs was 203 (95% CI 178; 229) in the care manager group and 155 (95% CI 131; 179) in the CAU group. Further, from a societal perspective, care manager care was associated with a lower cost than care as usual, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both QALYs and DFDs. From a health care perspective care manager care was related to a low cost per QALY (36,500 SEK / €3,379) and DFD (31 SEK/€3).LimitationsA limitation is the fact that QALY data was impaired by insufficient EQ-5D data for some patients.ConclusionsA care manager organization at the PCC to increase quality of care for patients with mild-moderate depression shows high health benefits, with no decay over time, and high cost-effectiveness both from a health care and a societal perspective. Trial registration details: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.com ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378272 ) in 02/02/2015 with the registration number NCT02378272. The first patient was enrolled in 11/20/2014.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Depression is one of the leading causes of disability and affects 10-15% of the population. The majority of people with depressive symptoms seek care and are treated in primary care. Evidence internationally for high quality care supports collaborative care with a care manager. Our aim was to study clinical effectiveness of a care manager intervention in management of primary care patients with depression in Sweden. METHODS:In a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial 23 primary care centers (PCCs), urban and rural, included patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new (< 1 month) depression diagnosis. Intervention consisted of Care management including continuous contact between care manager and patient, a structured management plan, and behavioral activation, altogether around 6-7 contacts over 12 weeks. Control condition was care as usual (CAU). OUTCOME MEASURES:Depression symptoms (measured by Mongomery-Asberg depression score-self (MADRS-S) and BDI-II), quality of life (QoL) (EQ-5D), return to work and sick leave, service satisfaction, and antidepressant medication. Data were analyzed with the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS:One hundred ninety two patients with depression at PCCs with care managers were allocated to the intervention group, and 184 patients at control PCCs were allocated to the control group. Mean depression score measured by MADRS-S was 2.17 lower in the intervention vs. the control group (95% CI [0.56; 3.79], p = 0.009) at 3 months and 2.27 lower (95% CI [0.59; 3.95], p = 0.008) at 6 months; corresponding BDI-II scores were 1.96 lower (95% CI [- 0.19; 4.11], p = 0.07) in the intervention vs. control group at 6 months. Remission was significantly higher in the intervention group at 6 months (61% vs. 47%, p = 0.006). QoL showed a steeper increase in the intervention group at 3 months (p = 0.01). During the first 3 months, return to work was significantly higher in the intervention vs. the control group. Patients in the intervention group were more consistently on antidepressant medication than patients in the control group. CONCLUSIONS:Care managers for depression treatment have positive effects on depression course, return to work, remission frequency, antidepressant frequency, and quality of life compared to usual care and is valued by the patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Identifier: NCT02378272 . February 2, 2015. Retrospectively registered.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of an internet-based perioperative care programme compared with usual care for gynaecological patients. DESIGN:Economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. SETTING:Secondary care, nine hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011-2014. PARTICIPANTS:433 employed women aged 18-65 years scheduled for a hysterectomy and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery. INTERVENTION:The intervention comprised an internet-based care programme aimed at improving convalescence and preventing delayed return to work (RTW) following gynaecological surgery and was sequentially rolled out. Depending on the implementation phase of their hospital, patients were allocated to usual care (n=206) or to the intervention (n=227). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was duration until full sustainable RTW. Secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health-related quality of life and recovery. RESULTS:At 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences in total societal costs (€-647; 95% CI €-2116 to €753) and duration until RTW (-4.1; 95% CI -10.8 to 2.6) between groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RTW was 56; each day earlier RTW in the intervention group was associated with cost savings of €56 compared with usual care. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.79 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0 per day earlier RTW, which increased to 0.97 at a WTP of €76 per day earlier RTW. The difference in QALYs gained over 12 months between the groups was clinically irrelevant resulting in a low probability of cost-effectiveness for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS:Considering that on average the costs of a day of sickness absence are €230, the care programme is considered cost-effective in comparison with usual care for duration until sustainable RTW after gynaecological surgery for benign disease. Future research should indicate whether widespread implementation of this care programme has the potential to reduce societal costs associated with gynaecological surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR2933; Results.

Project description:The costs of arm, shoulder and neck symptoms are high. In order to decrease these costs employers implement interventions aimed at reducing these symptoms. One frequently used intervention is the RSI QuickScan intervention programme. It establishes a risk profile of the target population and subsequently advises interventions following a decision tree based on that risk profile. The purpose of this study was to perform an economic evaluation, from both the societal and companies' perspective, of the RSI QuickScan intervention programme for computer workers. In this study, effectiveness was defined at three levels: exposure to risk factors, prevalence of arm, shoulder and neck symptoms, and days of sick leave.The economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participating computer workers from 7 companies (N = 638) were assigned to either the intervention group (N = 320) or the usual care group (N = 318) by means of cluster randomisation (N = 50). The intervention consisted of a tailor-made programme, based on a previously established risk profile. At baseline, 6 and 12 month follow-up, the participants completed the RSI QuickScan questionnaire. Analyses to estimate the effect of the intervention were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. To compare costs between groups, confidence intervals for cost differences were computed by bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapping.The mean intervention costs, paid by the employer, were 59 euro per participant in the intervention and 28 euro in the usual care group. Mean total health care and non-health care costs per participant were 108 euro in both groups. As to the cost-effectiveness, improvement in received information on healthy computer use as well as in their work posture and movement was observed at higher costs. With regard to the other risk factors, symptoms and sick leave, only small and non-significant effects were found.In this study, the RSI QuickScan intervention programme did not prove to be cost-effective from the both the societal and companies' perspective and, therefore, this study does not provide a financial reason for implementing this intervention. However, with a relatively small investment, the programme did increase the number of workers who received information on healthy computer use and improved their work posture and movement.NTR1117.

Project description:IntroductionMajor depression is a highly prevalent pathology that is currently the second most common cause of disease-induced disability in our society. The onset and continuation of depression may be related to a wide variety of biological and psychosocial factors, many of which are linked to different lifestyle aspects. Therefore, health systems must design and implement health promotion and lifestyle modification programmes (LMPs), taking into account personal factors and facilitators. The main objective of this protocol is to analyse the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost utility of an LMP and an LMP with information and communication technologies (ICTs) as adjunctive treatment for depression in primary care patients. The secondary objectives are to analyse the clinical effectiveness in the subgroup that presents comorbidity and to analyse the correlation between personal factors on health behaviour and lifestyle patterns.Methods and analysisA randomised, multicenter pragmatic clinical trial with three parallel groups consisting of primary healthcare patients suffering from subclinical, mild or moderate depression. The following interventions will be used: (1) Usual antidepressant treatment with psychological advice and/or psychotropic drugs prescribed by the general practitioner (treatment as usual (TAU)). (2) TAU+LMP. A programme to be imparted in six weekly 90-minute group sessions, intended to improve the following aspects: behavioural activation+daily physical activity+adherence to the Mediterranean diet pattern+sleep hygiene+careful exposure to sunlight. (3) TAU+LMP+ICTs: healthy lifestyle recommendations (TAU+LMP)+monitoring using ICTs (a wearable smartwatch). The primary outcome will be the depressive symptomatology and the secondary outcomes will be the quality of life, the use of health and social resources, personal factors on health behaviour, social support, lifestyle patterns and chronic comorbid pathology. Data will be collected before and after the intervention, with 6-month and 12-month follow-ups.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Aragón (approval number: C.P.-C.I. PI18/286) and the Research Ethics Committee of the Balearic Islands (IB3950/19 PI). Data distribution will be anonymous. Results will be disseminated via conferences and papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03951350).

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled study.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Discussion

Trial registration number

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets