Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Brief Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Youth 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

In 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.

Interventions

In 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 measures

Anxiety-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.

Results

Enrolled 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 relevance

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Lynch FL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7961309 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAnxiety and depression affect 30% of youth but are markedly undertreated compared with other mental disorders, especially in Hispanic populations.ObjectiveTo examine whether a pediatrics-based behavioral intervention targeting anxiety and depression improves clinical outcome compared with referral to outpatient community mental health care.Design, setting, and participantsThis 2-center randomized clinical trial with masked outcome assessment conducted between brief behavioral therapy (BBT) and assisted referral to care (ARC) studied 185 youths (aged 8.0-16.9 years) from 9 pediatric clinics in San Diego, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, recruited from October 6, 2010, through December 5, 2014. Youths who met DSM-IV criteria for full or probable diagnoses of separation anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, major depression, dysthymic disorder, and/or minor depression; lived with a consenting legal guardian for at least 6 months; and spoke English were included in the study. Exclusions included receipt of alternate treatment for anxiety or depression, presence of a suicidal plan, bipolar disorder, psychosis, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance dependence, current abuse, intellectual disability, or unstable serious physical illness.InterventionsThe BBT consisted of 8 to 12 weekly 45-minute sessions of behavioral therapy delivered in pediatric clinics by master's-level clinicians. The ARC families received personalized referrals to mental health care and check-in calls to support accessing care from master's-level coordinators.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was clinically significant improvement on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (score ≤2). Secondary outcomes included the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised, and functioning.ResultsA total of 185 patients were enrolled in the study (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [2.6] years; 107 [57.8%] female; 144 [77.8%] white; and 38 [20.7%] Hispanic). Youths in the BBT group (n = 95), compared with those in the ARC group (n = 90), had significantly higher rates of clinical improvement (56.8% vs 28.2%; χ21 = 13.09, P < .001; number needed to treat, 4), greater reductions in symptoms (F2,146 = 5.72; P = .004; Cohen f = 0.28), and better functioning (mean [SD], 68.5 [10.7] vs 61.9 [11.9]; t156 = 3.64; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.58). Ethnicity moderated outcomes, with Hispanic youth having substantially stronger response to BBT (76.5%) than ARC (7.1%) (χ21 = 14.90; P < .001; number needed to treat, 2). Effects were robust across sites.Conclusions and relevanceA pediatric-based brief behavioral intervention for anxiety and depression is associated with benefits superior to those of assisted referral to outpatient mental health care. Effects were especially strong for Hispanic participants, suggesting that the protocol may be a useful tool in addressing ethnic disparities in care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01147614.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of evidence-based psychotherapies for depression and anxiety, they are underused in non-mental health specialty settings such as primary care. Hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs have the potential to evaluate clinical and implementation outcomes of evidence-based psychotherapies to improve their translation into routine clinical care practices. METHODS: This protocol article discusses the study methodology and implementation strategies employed in an ongoing, hybrid, type 2 randomized controlled trial with two primary aims: (1) to determine whether a brief, manualized cognitive behavioral therapy administered by Veterans Affairs Primary Care Mental Health Integration program clinicians is effective in treating depression and anxiety in a sample of medically ill (chronic cardiopulmonary diseases) primary care patients and (2) to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary outcomes of a focused implementation strategy on improving adoption and fidelity of brief cognitive behavioral therapy at two Primary Care-Mental Health Integration clinics. The study uses a hybrid type 2 effectiveness/implementation design to simultaneously test clinical effectiveness and to collect pilot data on a multifaceted implementation strategy that includes an online training program, audit and feedback of session content, and internal and external facilitation. Additionally, the study engages the participation of an advisory council consisting of stakeholders from Primary Care-Mental Health Integration, as well as regional and national mental health leaders within the Veterans Administration. It targets recruitment of 320 participants randomized to brief cognitive behavioral therapy (n?=?200) or usual care (n?=?120). Both effectiveness and implementation outcomes are being assessed using mixed methods, including quantitative evaluation (e.g., intent-to-treat analyses across multiple time points) and qualitative methods (e.g., focus interviews and surveys from patients and providers). Patient-effectiveness outcomes include measures of depression, anxiety, and physical health functioning using blinded independent evaluators. Implementation outcomes include patient engagement and adherence and clinician brief cognitive behavioral therapy adoption and fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid designs are needed to advance clinical effectiveness and implementation knowledge to improve healthcare practices. The current article describes the rationale and challenges associated with the use of a hybrid design for the study of brief cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care. Although trade-offs exist between scientific control and external validity, hybrid designs are part of an emerging approach that has the potential to rapidly advance both science and practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01149772 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01149772.

Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder is a chronic condition; its prevalence is expected to grow with the aging trend of high-income countries. Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy has proven efficacy in treating major depressive disorder.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of implementing a community internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy intervention (Super@, the Spanish program for the MasterMind project) for treating major depressive disorder.MethodsThe cost-effectiveness of the Super@ program was assessed with the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing tool, using a 3-state Markov model. Data from the cost and effectiveness of the intervention were prospectively collected from the implementation of the program by a health care provider in Badalona, Spain; the corresponding data for usual care were gathered from the literature. The health states, transition probabilities, and utilities were computed using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores.ResultsThe analysis was performed using data from 229 participants using the Super@ program. Results showed that the intervention was more costly than usual care; the discounted (3%) and nondiscounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were €29,367 and €26,484 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively (approximately US $35,299 and $31,833, respectively). The intervention was cost-effective based on the €30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold typically applied in Spain (equivalent to approximately $36,060). According to the deterministic sensitivity analyses, the potential reduction of costs associated with intervention scale-up would reduce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the intervention, although it remained more costly than usual care. A discount in the incremental effects up to 5% exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000.ConclusionsThe Super@ program, an internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy intervention for treating major depressive disorder, cost more than treatment as usual. Nevertheless, its implementation in Spain would be cost-effective from health care and societal perspectives, given the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 compared with treatment as usual.

Project description:BackgroundData from primary health care in Spain show a high prevalence of the major depressive disorder. Blended treatment (combination of face-to-face and online components) seems to be a very promising tool for the optimization and dissemination of psychological treatments in a cost-effective form. Although there is growing data that confirm the advantages of blended therapies, few studies have analyzed their application in regular clinical practice. The objective of the present paper is to describe the protocol for a clinical study aimed at exploring the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a blended cognitive behavioral therapy (b-CBT) for depression, compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in a primary health care setting.MethodsA two-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial will be carried out, with repeated measures (baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months) under two conditions: b-CBT and TAU. The b-CBT program will consist in three face-to-face sessions and eight online sessions. The TAU is defined as the routine care delivered by the general practitioner for the treatment of depression in primary care. The primary outcome is a symptomatic change of depressive symptoms on the patient-health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Other secondary outcomes will be considered (e.g., quality of life, treatment preference). All participants must be 18 years of age or older and meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders 4th edition. 156 participants will be recruited (78 per arm).DiscussionIt is expected that b-CBT is clinically non-inferior when compared to TAU. This is the first study in Spain to use a b-CBT format in primary and specialized care, and this format could be an efficacious and cost-effective therapeutic strategy for the treatment of depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684. Registered on 8 January 2015. Currently recruiting participants.

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: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.