Dataset Information

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months.

Results

With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results.

Conclusions

Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010.

SUBMITTER: Fernandez A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5824561 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.

Fernández Anna A Mendive Juan M JM Conejo-Cerón Sonia S Moreno-Peral Patricia P King Michael M Nazareth Irwin I Martín-Pérez Carlos C Fernández-Alonso Carmen C Rodríguez-Bayón Antonina A Aiarzaguena Jose Maria JM Montón-Franco Carmen C Serrano-Blanco Antoni A Ibañez-Casas Inmaculada I Rodríguez-Sánchez Emiliano E Salvador-Carulla Luis L Garay Paola Bully PB Ballesta-Rodríguez María Isabel MI LaFuente Pilar P Del Mar Muñoz-García María M Mínguez-Gonzalo Pilar P Araujo Luz L Palao Diego D Gómez María Cruz MC Zubiaga Fernando F Navas-Campaña Desirée D Aranda-Regules Jose Manuel JM Rodriguez-Morejón Alberto A de Dios Luna Juan J Bellón Juan Ángel JÁ

BMC medicine 20180223 1

<h4>Background</h4>Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of ...[more]

PMID: 29471877

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite the availability of evidence-based treatments for depression, a large proportion of patients remains untreated or adequate treatment is initiated with delay. This situation is particularly critical in primary care, where not only most individuals first seek help for their mental health problems, but also depressive disorders - particularly mild to moderate levels of severity - are highly prevalent given the high comorbidity of chronic somatic conditions and depression. Improving the access for evidence-based treatment, especially in primary care, is hence a priority challenge in the mental health care agenda. Telephone usage is widespread and has the potential of overcoming many barriers that individuals suffering from mental health problems are facing: Its implementation for treatment delivery presents an option for optimisation of treatment pathways and outcomes.This paper details the study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of a telephone-administered short-term cognitive-behavioural therapy (T-CBT) for depression as compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in the Swiss primary care setting. The study aims at randomising a total of 216 mildly to moderately depressed patients, which are either identified by their General Practitioners (GPs) or who self-refer to the study programme in consultation with their GP. The trial will examine whether telephone-delivered, manualised treatment leads to clinically significant reduction in depression at follow-up. It will further investigate the cost-effectiveness and acceptability of the intervention in the primary care setting.Conducting a low-intensity treatment on the telephone allows for greater flexibility for both patient and therapist, can grant more anonymity and can thus lead to less hesitation in the patient about whether to attempt treatment or not. In order to benefit from this approach, large-scale studies need to prove superior effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone-delivered therapy over routine care for patients with mild to moderate depression.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02667366 . Registered on 3 December 2015.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Most evidence on the effect of collaborative care for depression is derived in the selective environment of randomised controlled trials. In collaborative care, practice nurses may act as case managers. The Primary Care Services Improvement Project (PCSIP) aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of practice nurse involvement in a real world Australian setting. Previous analyses have demonstrated the value of high level practice nurse involvement in the management of diabetes and obesity. This paper reports on their value in the management of depression. METHODS: General practices were assigned to a low or high model of care based on observed levels of practice nurse involvement in clinical-based activities for the management of depression (i.e. percentage of depression patients seen, percentage of consultation time spent on clinical-based activities). Linked, routinely collected data was used to determine patient level depression outcomes (proportion of depression-free days) and health service usage costs. Standardised depression assessment tools were not routinely used, therefore a classification framework to determine the patient's depressive state was developed using proxy measures (e.g. symptoms, medications, referrals, hospitalisations and suicide attempts). Regression analyses of costs and depression outcomes were conducted, using propensity weighting to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: Capacity to determine depressive state using the classification framework was dependent upon the level of detail provided in medical records. While antidepressant medication prescriptions were a strong indicator of depressive state, they could not be relied upon as the sole measure. Propensity score weighted analyses of total depression-related costs and depression outcomes, found that the high level model of care cost more (95% CI: -$314.76 to $584) and resulted in 5% less depression-free days (95% CI: -0.15 to 0.05), compared to the low level model. However, this result was highly uncertain, as shown by the confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Classification of patients' depressive state was feasible, but time consuming, using the classification framework proposed. Further validation of the framework is required. Unlike the analyses of diabetes and obesity management, no significant differences in the proportion of depression-free days or health service costs were found between the alternative levels of practice nurse involvement.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Obesity is one of the largest drivers of health care spending but nearly half of the population with obesity demonstrate suboptimal readiness for weight loss treatment. Black women are disproportionately likely to have both obesity and limited weight loss readiness. However, they have been shown to be receptive to strategies that prevent weight gain. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of a digital weight gain prevention intervention (Shape) for black women. Shape consisted of adaptive telephone-based coaching by health system personnel, a tailored skills training curriculum, and patient self-monitoring delivered via a fully automated interactive voice response system. METHODS:A cost and cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized clinical trial of the Shape intervention was conducted from the payer perspective. Costs included those of delivering the program to 91 intervention participants in the trial and were summarized by program elements: self-monitoring, skills training, coaching, and administration. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per QALY of Shape relative to usual care. RESULTS:Shape cost an average of US $758 per participant. The base-case model in which quality of life benefits decay linearly to zero 5 years post intervention cessation, generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US $55,264 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest an ICER below US $50,000 per QALY and US $100,000 per QALY in 39% and 98% of simulations, respectively. Results are highly sensitive to durability of benefits, rising to US $165,730 if benefits end 6 months post intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that the Shape intervention is cost-effective based on established benchmarks, indicating that it can be a part of a successful strategy to address the nation's growing obesity epidemic in low-income at-risk communities.

Project description:ImportanceParental smoking adversely affects parents' and children's health. There are effective interventions delivered in pediatric settings to help parents quit smoking. The cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is not known.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a parental smoking cessation intervention, the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) program, delivered in pediatric primary care, compared with usual care from a health care organization's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used data on intervention costs and parental smoking cessation collected prospectively as part of the CEASE randomized clinical trial. Data were collected at pediatric offices in 5 US states from April 2015 to October 2017. Participants included parents of children attending 10 pediatric primary care practices (5 control, 5 intervention). Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2020.ExposuresThe trial compared CEASE (practice training and support to address family tobacco use) vs usual care.Main outcomes and measuresThe overall cost and incremental cost per quit of the CEASE intervention were calculated using microcosting methods. CEASE effectiveness was estimated using 2 trial outcomes measures assessed in repeated cross-sections: (1) change in smoking prevalence assessed by parental report for intervention vs usual care practices at 2 weeks after program initiation (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up and (2) changes in the proportion of smokers who achieved cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the previous 2 years at baseline vs follow-up. Monte Carlo analyses were used to provide 95% CIs.ResultsThe study included a total of 3054 participants (1523 at baseline and 1531 at follow-up); 2163 (70.8%) were aged 25 to 44 years old, and 2481 (81.2%) were women. Over 2 years, the total cost of implementing and sustaining CEASE across 5 intervention practices was $115 778. The incremental cost per quit for CEASE compared with usual care was $1132 (95% CI, $653-$3603), according to the change in parent-reported smoking prevalence, and $762 (95% CI, $418-$2883), according to cotinine-confirmed cessation. CEASE was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $2000 per quit in 88.0% of simulations based on the parent-reported smoking prevalence and 94.6% of simulations based on cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation measures.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the CEASE intervention was associated with an incremental cost per quit that compared favorably with those of other clinical smoking cessation interventions. CEASE is inexpensive to initiate and maintain in the clinical pediatric setting, suggesting that it has the potential for a high impact on population health.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) and/or coronary heart disease (CHD) are at high risk to develop major depression. Preventing incident major depression may be an important tool in reducing the personal and societal burden of depression. The aim of the current study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a stepped care program to prevent major depression (Step-Dep) in diabetes mellitus type 2 and/or coronary heart disease patients with subthreshold depression in comparison with usual care.MethodsAn economic evaluation with 12 months follow-up was conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial from a societal perspective. Participants received care as usual (n = 140) or Step-Dep (n = 96) which consisted of four sequential treatment steps: watchful waiting, guided self-help, problem solving treatment and referral to a general practitioner. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cumulative incidence of major depression. Costs were measured every 3 months. Missing data was imputed using multiple imputation. Uncertainty around cost-effectiveness outcomes was estimated using bootstrapping and presented in cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves.ResultsThere were no significant differences in QALYs or depression incidence between treatment groups. Secondary care costs (mean difference €1644, 95% CI €344; €3370) and informal care costs (mean difference €1930, 95% CI €528; €4089) were significantly higher in the Step-Dep group than in the usual care group. The difference in total societal costs (€1001, 95% CI €-3975; €6409) was not statistically significant. The probability of the Step-Dep intervention being cost-effective was low, with a maximum of 0.41 at a ceiling ratio of €30,000 per QALY gained and 0.32 at a ceiling ratio of €0 per prevented case of major depression.ConclusionsThe Step-Dep intervention is not cost-effective compared to usual care in a population of patients with DM2/CHD and subthreshold depression. Therefore, widespread implementation cannot be recommended.Trial registrationThe trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register ( NTR3715 ).

Project description:ImportanceYouth anxiety and depression are common and undertreated. Pediatric transdiagnostic interventions for anxiety and/or depression may be associated with improved access to treatment among youths.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pediatric transdiagnostic brief behavioral therapy (BBT) program for anxiety and/or depression compared with assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care (ARC).Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective using data from a randomized clinical trial of youths with full or probable diagnoses of anxiety or depression who were recruited from pediatric clinics in San Diego, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The trial was conducted from October 6, 2010, through December 5, 2014, and this analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, through October 20, 2020.InterventionsIn the randomized clinical trial, youths were randomized to BBT (n = 95) or ARC (n = 90). The BBT program consisted of 8 to 12 weekly 45-minute sessions of behavioral therapy delivered in pediatric clinics by master's-level therapists. Families randomized to ARC received personalized referrals to mental health care and telephone calls to support access to care.Main outcomes and measuresAnxiety-free days, depression-free days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from intake through 32-week follow-up. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for QALYs was used to assess the probability that BBT was cost-effective compared with ARC over a range of amounts that a decision-maker might be willing to pay for an additional outcome.ResultsEnrolled patients included 185 youths (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [2.6] years; 107 [57.8%] female; 144 [77.8%] White; and 38 [20.7%] Hispanic). Youths who received BBT experienced significantly more anxiety-free days (difference, 28.63 days; 95% CI, 5.86-50.71 days; P = .01) and QALYs (difference, 0.026; 95% CI, 0.009-0.046; P = .007) compared with youths who received ARC. Youths who received BBT experienced more depression-free days than did youths who received ARC (difference, 10.52 days; 95% CI, -4.50 to 25.76 days; P = .18), but the difference was not statistically significant. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -$41 414 per QALY (95% CI, -$220 601 to $11 468). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis indicated that, at a recommended willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, the probability that BBT would be cost-effective compared with ARC at 32 weeks was 95.6%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, BBT in primary care was significantly associated with better outcomes and a greater probability of cost-effectiveness at 32 weeks compared with ARC. The findings suggest that transdiagnostic BBT may be associated with improved youth anxiety and functioning at a reasonable cost.

Dataset Information

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets