Dataset Information

Early psychosocial intervention in Alzheimer's disease: cost utility evaluation alongside the Danish Alzheimer's Intervention Study (DAISY).

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the cost utility of early psychosocial intervention for patients with Alzheimer's disease and their primary caregivers.

Design

Cost utility evaluation alongside a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with 3 years of follow-up.

Setting

Primary care and memory clinics in five Danish districts.

Participants

330 community-dwelling patients and their primary caregivers.

Intervention

Psychosocial counselling and support lasting 8-12 months after diagnosis and follow-up at 3, 6, 12 and 36 months in the intervention group or follow-up only in the control group.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the cost of additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective, including the costs of healthcare, social care, informal care and production loss. QALYs were estimated separately for the patient and the caregiver before aggregation for the main analysis.

Results

None of the observed cost and QALY measures were significantly different between the intervention and control groups, although a tendency was noted for psychosocial care leading to cost increases with informal care that was not outweighed by the tendency for cost savings with formal care. The probability of psychosocial intervention being cost-effective did not exceed 36% for any threshold value. The alternative scenario analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness increased over the range of threshold values used if the cost perspective was restricted to formal healthcare.

Conclusions

A multifaceted, psychosocial intervention programme was found unlikely to be cost-effective from a societal perspective. The recommendation for practice in settings that are similar to the Danish setting is to provide follow-up with referral to available local support programmes when needed, and to restrict large multifaceted intervention programmes to patients and caregivers with special needs until further evidence for cost-effectiveness emerges.

Trial registration

The study was registered in the Clinical Trial Database as ISRCTN74848736.

SUBMITTER: Sogaard R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3902512 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early psychosocial intervention in Alzheimer's disease: cost utility evaluation alongside the Danish Alzheimer's Intervention Study (DAISY).

Søgaard Rikke R Sørensen Jan J Waldorff Frans B FB Eckermann Ane A Buss Dorte V DV Phung Kieu T T KT Waldemar Gunhild G

BMJ open 20140115 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the cost utility of early psychosocial intervention for patients with Alzheimer's disease and their primary caregivers.<h4>Design</h4>Cost utility evaluation alongside a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with 3 years of follow-up.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care and memory clinics in five Danish districts.<h4>Participants</h4>330 community-dwelling patients and their primary caregivers.<h4>Intervention</h4>Psychosocial counselling and support lasting 8-12 months af ...[more]

PMID: 24435893

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy at 12 months of an early psychosocial counselling and support programme for outpatients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their primary care givers.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled, rater blinded trial.SettingPrimary care and memory clinics in five Danish districts.Participants330 outpatients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their 330 primary care givers.InterventionsParticipating dyads (patient and primary care giver) were randomised to control support during follow-up or to control support plus DAISY intervention (multifaceted and semi-tailored counselling, education, and support).Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes at 12 months for patients were change from baseline in mini mental state examination (MMSE) score, Cornell depression scale score, and proxy rated European quality of life visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) score. For care givers, outcomes were change from baseline in geriatric depression scale (GDS 30 items) score and EQ-VAS score.ResultsBecause of multiple testing, statistical significance was set at an adjusted P limit of <0.0005. At 12 months there were no significant differences between the two allocation groups in changes from baseline in the primary and secondary outcomes. However, although non-significant with the adjusted P limit, a small difference was observed for one of the primary patient outcomes (Cornell depression scale score) in patients in favour of the DAISY intervention group before and after adjusting for attrition (P = 0.0146 and P = 0.0103 respectively).ConclusionsThe multifaceted, semi-tailored intervention with counselling, education, and support for patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their care givers did not have any significant effect beyond that with well structured follow-up support at 12 months after adjustment for multiple comparisons. The small positive effect found in the unadjusted primary outcome addressing depressive symptoms in patients may call for further research focusing on patients with Alzheimer's disease and comorbid depression.Trial registrationISRCTN74848736.

Project description:BackgroundInternet-delivered psychosocial interventions can overcome barriers to face-to-face psychosocial care, but limited evidence supports their cost-effectiveness for people with bipolar disorders (BDs).ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of an internet-based intervention for people with BD, MoodSwings 2.0, from an Australian health sector perspective.MethodsMoodSwings 2.0 included an economic evaluation alongside an international, parallel, and individually stratified randomized controlled trial comparing an internet-based discussion forum (control; group 1), a discussion forum plus internet-based psychoeducation (group 2), and a discussion forum plus psychoeducation and cognitive behavioral tools (group 3). The trial enrolled adults (aged 21 to 65 years) with a diagnosis of BD assessed by telephone using a structured clinical interview. Health sector costs included intervention delivery and additional health care resources used by participants over the 12-month trial follow-up. Outcomes included depression symptoms measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; the trial primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated using the short-form 6-dimension instrument derived from the 12-item version of the short-form health survey. Average incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per MADRS score) and cost-utility (cost per QALY) ratios were calculated using estimated mean differences between intervention and control groups from linear mixed effects models in the base case.ResultsIn total, 304 participants were randomized. Average health sector cost was lowest for group 2 (Aus $9431, SD Aus $8540; Aus $1=US $0.7058) compared with the control group (Aus $15,175, SD Aus $17,206) and group 3 (Aus $15,518, SD Aus $30,523), but none was statistically significantly different. The average QALYs were not significantly different among the groups (group 1: 0.627, SD 0.062; group 2: 0.618, SD 0.094; and group 3: 0.622, SD 0.087). The MADRS scores were previously shown to differ significantly between group 2 and the control group at all follow-up time points (P<.05). Group 2 was dominant (lower costs and greater effects) compared with the control group for average incremental cost per point decrease in MADRS score over 12 months (95% CI dominated to Aus $331). Average cost per point change in MADRS score for group 3 versus the control group was dominant (95% CI dominant to Aus $22,585). Group 2 was dominant (95% CI Aus $43,000 to dominant) over the control group based on lower average health sector cost and average QALY benefit of 0.012 (95% CI -0.009 to 0.033). Group 3, compared with the control group, had an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dominant (95% CI dominated to Aus $19,978).ConclusionsWeb-based psychoeducation through MoodSwings 2.0 has the potential to be a cost-effective intervention for people with BD. Additional research is needed to understand the lack of effectiveness for the addition of cognitive behavioral tools with the group 3 intervention.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the long-term efficacy at the 36-month follow-up of an early psychosocial counselling and support programme lasting 8-12 months for community-dwelling patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled, rater-blinded trial.SettingPrimary care and memory clinics in five Danish districts.Participants330 home-dwelling patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their primary caregivers (dyads).InterventionsDyads were randomised to receive intervention during the first year after diagnosis. Both intervention and control groups had follow-up visits at 3, 6, 12 and 36 months.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes for the patients assessed at 36-month follow-up were changes from baseline in global cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination), depressive symptoms (Cornell Depression Scale) and proxy-rated EuroQoL quality of life on visual analogue scale. The primary outcomes for the caregivers were changes from baseline in depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale) and self-rated EuroQoL quality of life on a visual analogue scale. The secondary outcome measures for the patient were proxy-rated Quality of Life Scale for Alzheimer's disease (QoL-AD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire, Alzheimer's disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale, all-cause mortality and nursing home placement.ResultsAt a 36-month follow-up, 2 years after the completion of the Danish Alzheimer Intervention Study (DAISY), the unadjusted positive effects previously detected at the 12-month follow-up in one patient primary outcome (Cornell depression score) and one patient secondary outcome (proxy-rated QoL-AD) disappeared (Cornell depression score, p=0.93; proxy-rated QoL-AD, p=0.81). No long-term effect of DAISY intervention on any other primary and secondary outcomes was found at the 36-month follow-up.ConclusionsFor patients with very mild Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers, an intensive, multi-component, semitailored psychosocial intervention programme with counselling, education and support during the first year after diagnosis did not show any positive long-term effect on primary and secondary outcomes.Trial registrationThe study was registered in the Clinical Trial Database (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN74848736).

Project description:ObjectiveTo undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care.DesignCost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.SettingCommunity settings in Greater London, England.Participants174 young people with obesity aged 12-19 years.InterventionsIntervention participants received 12 one-to-one sessions across 6?months, addressing lifestyle behaviours and focusing on motivation to change and self-esteem rather than weight change, delivered by trained graduate health workers in community settings. Control participants received a single 1-hour one-to-one nurse-delivered session providing didactic weight-management advice.Main outcome measuresMean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per participant over a 1-year period using resource use data and utility values collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC).ResultsMean intervention costs per participant were £918 for HELP and £68 for enhanced standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean resource use per participant for any type of healthcare contact. Adjusted costs were significantly higher in the intervention group (mean incremental costs for HELP vs enhanced standard care £1003 (95% CI £837 to £1168)). There were no differences in adjusted QALYs between groups (mean QALYs gained 0.008 (95% CI -0.031 to 0.046)). The ICER of the HELP versus enhanced standard care was £120?630 per QALY gained. The CEAC shows that the probability that HELP was cost-effective relative to the enhanced standard care was 0.002 or 0.046, at a threshold of £20?000 or £30?000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsWe did not find evidence that HELP was more effective than a single educational session in improving quality of life in a sample of adolescents with obesity. HELP was associated with higher costs, mainly due to the extra costs of delivering the intervention and therefore is not cost-effective.Trial registration numberISRCTN9984011.

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:BACKGROUND:PDSAFE is an individually-tailored, physiotherapist-delivered, balance, strength and strategy training programme aimed at preventing falls among people with Parkinson's. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PDSAFE compared with usual care for people with Parkinson's at higher risk of falling, from a UK National Health Service and Personal Social Service perspective. METHODS:Resource use and quality of life data (EQ-5D-3L) were collected from 238 participants randomised to the PDSAFE intervention and 236 participants randomised to control, at baseline, 3?months, 6?months (primary outcome), and 12?months. Adjusted cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using generalised linear models and uncertainty estimated using a non-parametric bootstrap. RESULTS:Over 6 months, the PDSAFE intervention was associated with an incremental cost of £925 (95% CI £428 to £1422) and a very small and statistically insignificant QALY gain of 0.008 (95% CI -?0.006 to 0.021). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £120,659 per QALY and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at a UK threshold of £30,000/QALY was less than 1%. The ICER varied substantially across subgroups although no subgroup had an ICER lower than the £30,000 threshold. The result was sensitive to the time horizon with the ICER reducing to £55,176 per QALY when adopting a 12-month time horizon and assuming a sustained treatment effect on QoL, nevertheless, the intervention was still not cost-effective according to the current UK threshold. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from this trial suggests that the PDSAFE intervention is unlikely to be cost-effective at 6 months. The 12-month analysis suggested that the intervention became closer to being cost-effective if quality of life effects were sustained beyond the intervention period, however this would require confirmation. Further research, including qualitative studies, should be conducted to better understand the treatment effect of physiotherapy and its impact on quality of life in people with Parkinson's given existing mixed evidence on this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN48152791. Registered 17 April 2014. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN48152791.

Dataset Information

Early psychosocial intervention in Alzheimer's disease: cost utility evaluation alongside the Danish Alzheimer's Intervention Study (DAISY).

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Early psychosocial intervention in Alzheimer's disease: cost utility evaluation alongside the Danish Alzheimer's Intervention Study (DAISY).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets