Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of depressive disorders in primary care: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

For the treatment of depressive disorders, the framework of collaborative care has been recommended, which showed improved outcomes in the primary care sector. Yet, an earlier literature review did not find sufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care.

Purpose

To systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care, compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care.

Methods

A systematic literature search in major databases was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. To ensure comparability across studies, cost data were inflated to the year 2012 using country-specific gross domestic product inflation rates, and were adjusted to international dollars using purchasing power parities (PPP).

Results

In total, 19 cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed. The included studies had sample sizes between n = 65 to n = 1,801, and time horizons between six to 24 months. Between 42% and 89% of the CHEC quality criteria were fulfilled, and in only one study no risk of bias was identified. A societal perspective was used by five studies. Incremental costs per depression-free day ranged from dominance to US$PPP 64.89, and incremental costs per QALY from dominance to US$PPP 874,562.

Conclusion

Despite our review improved the comparability of study results, cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care is ambiguous depending on willingness to pay. A still considerable uncertainty, due to inconsistent methodological quality and results among included studies, suggests further cost-effectiveness analyses using QALYs as effect measures and a time horizon of at least 1 year.

SUBMITTER: Grochtdreis T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4437997 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMental health disorders contribute significantly to the global burden of disease and lead to extensive strain on health systems. The integration of mental health workers into primary care has been proposed as one possible solution, but evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness of this approach is unclear. We reviewed the clinical and cost effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.DesignSystematic literature review.Data sourcesWe searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Global Health databases.Eligibility criteriaAll quantitative studies published before July 2019 were eligible for the review; participants of any age and gender were included. Studies did not need to report a certain outcome measure or comparator in order to be eligible.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted using a standardised table; however, pooled analysis proved unfeasible. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.ResultsFifteen studies from four countries were included. Mental health worker integration was associated with mental health benefits to varied populations, including minority groups and those with comorbid chronic diseases. Furthermore, the interventions were correlated with high patient satisfaction and increases in specialist mental health referrals among minority populations. However, there was insufficient evidence to suggest clinical outcomes were significantly different from usual general practitioner care.ConclusionsWhile there appear to be some benefits associated with mental health worker integration in primary care practices, we found insufficient evidence to conclude that an onsite primary care mental health worker is significantly more clinically or cost effective when compared with usual general practitioner care. There should therefore be an increased emphasis on generating new evidence from clinical trials to better understand the benefits and effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.

Project description:Importance:Collaborative care for depression and anxiety is superior to usual care from primary care physicians for these conditions; however, challenges limit its provision in routine practice and at scale. Advances in technology may overcome these barriers but have yet to be tested. Objective:To examine the effectiveness of combining an internet support group (ISG) with an online computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (CCBT) provided via a collaborative care program for treating depression and anxiety vs CCBT alone and whether providing CCBT in this manner is more effective than usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this 3-arm randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessments, primary care physicians from 26 primary care practices in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, referred 2884 patients aged 18 to 75 years in response to an electronic medical record prompt from August 2012 to September 2014. Overall, 704 patients (24.4%) met all eligibility criteria and were randomized to CCBT alone (n?=?301), CCBT+ISG (n?=?302), or usual care (n?=?101). Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted November 2015 to January 2017. Interventions:Six months of guided access to an 8-session CCBT program provided by care managers who informed primary care physicians of their patients' progress and promoted patient engagement with our online programs. Main Outcomes and Measures:Mental health-related quality of life (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental Health Composite Scale) and depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) at 6-month follow-up, with treatment durability assessed 6 months later. Results:Of the 704 randomized patients, 562 patients (79.8%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 42.7 (14.3) years. A total of 604 patients (85.8%) completed our primary 6-month outcome assessment. At 6-month assessment, 254 of 301 patients (84.4%) receiving CCBT alone started the program (mean [SD] sessions completed, 5.4 [2.8]), and 228 of 302 patients (75.5%) in the CCBT+ISG cohort logged into the ISG at least once, of whom 141 (61.8%) provided 1 or more comments or posts (mean, 10.5; median [range], 3 [1-306]). Patients receiving CCBT+ISG reported similar 6-month improvements in mental health-related quality of life, mood, and anxiety symptoms compared with patients receiving CCBT alone. However, compared with patients receiving usual care, patients in the CCBT alone cohort reported significant 6-month effect size improvements in mood (effect size, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-0.53) and anxiety (effect size, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.05-0.48) that persisted 6 months later, and completing more CCBT sessions produced greater effect size improvements in mental health-related quality of life and symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance:While providing moderated access to an ISG provided no additional benefit over guided CCBT at improving mental health-related quality of life, mood, and anxiety symptoms, guided CCBT alone is more effective than usual care for these conditions. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01482806.

Project description:IntroductionIn recent years, the role of pharmacists has undergone significant transformation to become more patient-centered and involved in managing chronic diseases. Nonetheless, it remains unclear whether pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is cost-effective. This study aimed to systematically review the cost-effectiveness and reporting quality in comprehensive economic evaluations of pharmacist management compared to standard care in diabetes.MethodsEligible studies included cost-effectiveness analyses employing pharmacist professional services as the intervention for diabetes. A literature search was conducted in the bibliographic databases Pubmed, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database from their inception until July 2023. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, full-text screening, and data abstraction and assessed the quality of reporting and methodological approaches using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) checklists.ResultsTwelve studies were identified with an average research quality score of 19.8, including cost-utility (n = 5) and cost-effectiveness (n = 7) analyses, with only four studies rated as high quality. The efficacy data were derived from randomized controlled trials (n = 7), retrospective studies (n = 2), and published literature sources (n = 2). Half of the included studies were conducted in high-income countries, while the other half was in upper-middle and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. Despite significant variations in the cost of pharmacist intervention, consistent findings demonstrate that pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is more cost-effective or even cost-saving than standard care, primarily attributed to better glycemic control, enhanced patient compliance, and reduced risks of medication-related problems.ConclusionThis systematic review substantiates that pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is cost-effective compared with standard care. However, the overall quality of reporting needs to be improved, and high-quality evidence is urgently needed to support healthcare decision-making in pharmacy practice.