Dataset Information

Comparison of Simulated Treatment and Cost-effectiveness of a Stepped Care Case-Finding Intervention vs Usual Care for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After a Natural Disaster.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Psychiatric interventions offered after natural disasters commonly address subsyndromal symptom presentations, but often remain insufficient to reduce the burden of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Objective

To simulate a comparison of a stepped care case-finding intervention (stepped care [SC]) vs a moderate-strength single-level intervention (usual care [UC]) on treatment effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness in the 2 years after a natural disaster.

Design, setting, and participants

This study, which simulated treatment scenarios that start 4 weeks after landfall of Hurricane Sandy on October 29, 2012, and ending 2 years later, created a model of 2?642?713 simulated agents living in the areas of New York City affected by Hurricane Sandy.

Interventions

Under SC, cases were referred to cognitive behavioral therapy, an evidence-based therapy that aims to improve symptoms through problem solving and by changing thoughts and behaviors; noncases were referred to Skills for Psychological Recovery, an evidence-informed therapy that aims to reduce distress and improve coping and functioning. Under UC, all patients were referred only to Skills for Psychological Recovery.

Main outcomes and measures

The reach of SC compared with UC for 2 years, the 2-year reduction in prevalence of PTSD among the full population, the 2-year reduction in the proportion of PTSD cases among initial cases, and 10-year incremental cost-effectiveness.

Results

This population of 2?642?713 simulated agents was initialized with a PTSD prevalence of 4.38% (115?751 cases) and distributions of sex (52.6% female and 47.4% male) and age (33.9% aged 18-34 years, 49.0% aged 35-64 years, and 17.1% aged ?65 years) that were comparable with population estimates in the areas of New York City affected by Hurricane Sandy. Stepped care was associated with greater reach and was superior to UC in reducing the prevalence of PTSD in the full population: absolute benefit was clear at 6 months (risk difference [RD], -0.004; 95% CI, -0.004 to -0.004), improving through 1.25 years (RD, -0.015; 95% CI, -0.015 to -0.014). Relative benefits of SC were clear at 6 months (risk ratio, 0.905; 95% CI, 0.898-0.913), with continued gains through 1.75 years (risk ratio, 0.615; 95% CI, 0.609-0.662). The absolute benefit of SC among cases was much stronger, emerging at 3 months (RD, -0.006; 95% CI, -0.007 to -0.005) and increasing through 1.5 years (RD, -0.338; 95% CI, -0.342 to -0.335). Relative benefits of SC among cases were equivalent to those observed in the full population. The incremental cost-effectiveness of SC compared with UC was $3428.71 to $6857.68 per disability-adjusted life year avoided, and $0.80 to $1.61 per PTSD-free day.

Conclusions and relevance

The results of this simulation study suggest that SC for individuals with PTSD in the aftermath of a natural disaster is associated with greater reach than UC, more effectiveness than UC, and is well within the range of acceptability for cost-effectiveness. Results should be considered in light of limitations inherent to agent-based models.

SUBMITTER: Cohen GH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583387 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Simulated Treatment and Cost-effectiveness of a Stepped Care Case-Finding Intervention vs Usual Care for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After a Natural Disaster.

Cohen Gregory H GH Tamrakar Shailesh S Lowe Sarah S Sampson Laura L Ettman Catherine C Linas Ben B Ruggiero Kenneth K Galea Sandro S

JAMA psychiatry 20171201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>Psychiatric interventions offered after natural disasters commonly address subsyndromal symptom presentations, but often remain insufficient to reduce the burden of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).<h4>Objective</h4>To simulate a comparison of a stepped care case-finding intervention (stepped care [SC]) vs a moderate-strength single-level intervention (usual care [UC]) on treatment effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness in the 2 years after a natural disa ...[more]

PMID: 28979968

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDepression is associated with major patient burden. Its treatment requires complex and collaborative approaches. A stepped care model based on the German National Clinical Practice Guideline "Unipolar Depression" has been shown to be effective. In this study we assess the cost-effectiveness of this guideline based stepped care model versus treatment as usual in depression.MethodsThis prospective cluster-randomized controlled trial included 737 depressive adult patients. Primary care practices were randomized to an intervention (IG) or a control group (CG). The intervention consisted of a four-level stepped care model. The CG received treatment as usual. A cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. We used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on the EQ-5D-3L as effect measure. Resource utilization was assessed by patient questionnaires. Missing values were imputed by 'multiple imputation using chained equations' based on predictive mean matching. We calculated adjusted group differences in costs and effects as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To describe the statistical and decision uncertainty cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed based on net-benefit regressions with bootstrapped standard errors (1000 replications). The complete sample and subgroups based on depression severity were considered.ResultsWe found no statically significant differences in costs and effects between IG and CG. The incremental total societal costs (+€5016; 95%-CI: [-€259;€10,290) and effects (+ 0.008 QALY; 95%-CI: [- 0.030; 0.046]) were higher in the IG in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher costs were found in the IG for outpatient physician services and psychiatrist services in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher total costs and productivity losses in the IG in comparison to the CG were found in the group with severe depression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the IG in comparison to the CG were unfavourable (complete sample: €627.000/QALY gained; mild depression: dominated; moderately severe depression: €645.154/QALY gained; severe depression: €2082,714/QALY gained) and the probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention was low, except for the group with moderate depression (ICER: dominance; 70% for willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY gained).ConclusionsWe found no evidence for cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison to treatment as usual.Trial registrationNCT, NCT01731717 . Registered 22 November 2012 - Retrospectively registered.

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:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of custom-made insoles compared with general practitioner (GP)-led usual care after 26 weeks of follow-up in individuals with plantar heel pain (PHP) from a societal perspective.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis of a double-blinded randomised controlled trial.SettingGeneral practice in the Netherlands.Participants116 participants with PHP for at least 2 weeks, aged 18-65 years and presenting to the GP.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to GP-led usual care (n=46) or referral to a podiatrist for treatment with a custom-made insole (n=70). Participant randomised to a sham insole (n=69) were excluded from this analysis.Primary and secondary outcomesOutcomes comprised pain during rest and activity, and quality of life. Costs included healthcare and lost productivity costs. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping and presented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.ResultsParticipants in the custom-made insole group experienced statistically significant more pain during activity at 26 weeks than participants in the usual care group (overall effect 1.06; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.75). There were no significant differences between groups in other outcomes. Total societal costs in the custom-made insole group were non-significantly higher than in the usual care group (mean difference €376; 95% CI -€1775 to €2038). The intervention with custom-made insoles was dominated by usual care by the GP (ie, more expensive and less effective) for pain during activity and quality of life outcomes. For the outcome pain at rest, the intervention was more expensive and more effective than usual care. However, the maximum probability of cost-effectiveness was only 0.59 at very high ceiling ratios.ConclusionsThese findings show that that custom-made insoles are not cost-effective in comparison with GP-led usual care. Clinicians should be reserved in prescribing custom-made insoles for PHP as a primary intervention.Trial registration numberNTR5346.

Project description:Fatigue is a common yet difficult to treat condition in primary care. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) based fatigue self-management (FSM) intervention as compared to usual care among patients with chronic fatigue in primary care.An economic evaluation alongside of a parallel randomized controlled study design was used. Computer-generated variable-sized block randomization plan was used to assign patients into treatment groups and data collection staff were blinded to group assignments. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years with at least six months of persistent fatigue and no medical or psychiatric exclusions were enrolled from a large primary care practice in Stony Brook, New York. The FSM group (n = 37) received two sessions of a nurse-delivered, fatigue self-management protocol and a self-help book and the usual care group (n = 36) received regular medical care. The effectiveness measure was the Fatigue Severity Scale and the cost measure was total health care expenditures derived from monthly health services use diaries during follow-up. A societal perspective was adopted and bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated as measures of cost-effectiveness.The ICER for FSM was -$$2358, indicating that FSM dominates UC and it may generate societal cost savings as compared to usual care. Complete case analysis yielded smaller ICER (-$1199) with greater uncertainties. Net monetary benefit analysis showed that FSM has a probability of 0.833 (95% CI: 0.819, 0.847) to achieve positive NMB and the favorable results were not sensitive to assumptions about informal care or treatment costs.This economic evaluation found initial evidence that a two-session brief CBT-based FSM may be cost-effective as compared to usual care over 12 months. The FSM intervention is potentially a promising intervention for chronic fatigue patients in primary care. Additional research is needed to examine the reproducibility and generalizability of these findings.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00997451, March 28, 2009).

Project description:ImportanceIt is critically important to evaluate the effect of nonpharmacological treatments on low back pain and associated disability.ObjectiveTo determine whether the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care results in better pain relief and pain-related function when compared with usual medical care alone.Design, setting, and participantsA 3-site pragmatic comparative effectiveness clinical trial using adaptive allocation was conducted from September 28, 2012, to February 13, 2016, at 2 large military medical centers in major metropolitan areas and 1 smaller hospital at a military training site. Eligible participants were active-duty US service members aged 18 to 50 years with low back pain from a musculoskeletal source.InterventionsThe intervention period was 6 weeks. Usual medical care included self-care, medications, physical therapy, and pain clinic referral. Chiropractic care included spinal manipulative therapy in the low back and adjacent regions and additional therapeutic procedures such as rehabilitative exercise, cryotherapy, superficial heat, and other manual therapies.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary outcomes were low back pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale; scores ranging from 0 [no low back pain] to 10 [worst possible low back pain]) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; scores ranging from 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included perceived improvement, satisfaction (Numerical Rating Scale; scores ranging from 0 [not at all satisfied] to 10 [extremely satisfied]), and medication use. The coprimary outcomes were modeled with linear mixed-effects regression over baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, and 12.ResultsOf the 806 screened patients who were recruited through either clinician referrals or self-referrals, 750 were enrolled (250 at each site). The mean (SD) participant age was 30.9 (8.7) years, 175 participants (23.3%) were female, and 243 participants (32.4%) were nonwhite. Statistically significant site × time × group interactions were found in all models. Adjusted mean differences in scores at week 6 were statistically significant in favor of usual medical care plus chiropractic care compared with usual medical care alone overall for low back pain intensity (mean difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.7), disability (mean difference, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.1 to -1.2), and satisfaction (mean difference, 2.5; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.8) as well as at each site. Adjusted odd ratios at week 6 were also statistically significant in favor of usual medical care plus chiropractic care overall for perceived improvement (odds ratio = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.13-0.25) and self-reported pain medication use (odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97). No serious related adverse events were reported.Conclusions and relevanceChiropractic care, when added to usual medical care, resulted in moderate short-term improvements in low back pain intensity and disability in active-duty military personnel. This trial provides additional support for the inclusion of chiropractic care as a component of multidisciplinary health care for low back pain, as currently recommended in existing guidelines. However, study limitations illustrate that further research is needed to understand longer-term outcomes as well as how patient heterogeneity and intervention variations affect patient responses to chiropractic care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01692275.

Project description:BackgroundMore than half of the unaccompanied young refugees (UYRs) resettled in Europe report elevated levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and comorbid symptoms. Earlier studies have highlighted the effectiveness of the trauma-focused preventive group intervention "Mein Weg" (English "My Way"), and the feasibility of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) for UYRs. Both interventions are deemed to be empirically supported treatments (ESTs). However, UYRs seldom receive ESTs or, in fact, any treatment at all. In view of the high need and the limited treatment resources available, a stepped-care approach is indicated but has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this trial is to compare the stepped-care approach BETTER CARE with usual care enhanced with screening and indication (usual care+).MethodsIn a cluster randomized controlled trial involving N = 540 UYRs living in up to N = 54 child and youth welfare service (CYWS) facilities, BETTER CARE will be compared with usual care+. We will randomize clusters comprising a CYWS facility with at least one eligible psychotherapist. BETTER CARE consists of step (1) screening and indication and either step (2) preventive trauma-focused group intervention "Mein Weg" delivered by trained CYWS staff or step (3) TF-CBT delivered by trained community therapists and supported by trained translators if necessary. Participants will be assessed 6 and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcome is the severity of PTSS after 12 months. Secondary outcomes are depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, and proxy reported PTSS. Furthermore, drug use, health costs, benefits, and long-term effects on integration/acculturation will be assessed.DiscussionThe trial will directly integrate a stepped-care approach into existing structures of the German child welfare and (mental) health system. It could, therefore, serve as a blueprint for how to implement ESTs for UYRs. If successful, screening, prevention, and intervention will be sustainably implemented in CYWS in southern Germany.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017453 . Registered on 11 December 2019.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Simulated Treatment and Cost-effectiveness of a Stepped Care Case-Finding Intervention vs Usual Care for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After a Natural Disaster.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Interventions

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Comparison of Simulated Treatment and Cost-effectiveness of a Stepped Care Case-Finding Intervention vs Usual Care for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After a Natural Disaster.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets