Dataset Information

Exploring the cost-effectiveness of a Dutch collaborative stepped care intervention for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety when adapted to the Australian context: a model-based cost-utility analysis

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental health conditions treated in primary care. They frequently co-occur and involve recommended treatments that overlap. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) shows specific stepped care interventions to be cost-effective in improving symptom remission. However, most RCTs have focused on either depression or anxiety, which limits their generalisability to routine primary care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative stepped care (CSC) intervention to treat depression and/or anxiety among adults in Australian primary care settings.

Method

A quasi-decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CSC intervention relative to care-as-usual (CAU). The model adapted a CSC intervention described in a previous Dutch RCT to the Australian context. This 8-month, cluster RCT recruited patients with depression and/or anxiety (n = 158) from 30 primary care clinics in the Netherlands. The CSC intervention involved two steps: (1) guided self-help with a nurse at a primary care clinic; and (2) referral to specialised mental healthcare. The cost-effectiveness model adopted a health sector perspective and synthesised data from two main sources: RCT data on intervention pathways, remission probabilities and healthcare service utilisation; and Australia-specific data on demography, epidemiology and unit costs from external sources. Incremental costs and incremental health outcomes were estimated across a 1-year time horizon. Health outcomes were measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to remitted cases of depression and/or anxiety. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured in 2019 Australian dollars (A$) per DALY averted. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness findings.

Result

The CSC intervention had a high probability (99.6%) of being cost-effective relative to CAU. The resulting ICER (A$5207/DALY; 95% uncertainty interval: dominant to 25 345) fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50 000/DALY. ICERs were robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions.

Conclusions

This study found that a Dutch CSC intervention, with nurse-delivered guided self-help treatment as a first step, could potentially be cost-effective in treating depression and/or anxiety if transferred to the Australian primary care context. However, adaptations may be required to ensure feasibility and acceptability in the Australian healthcare context. In addition, further evidence is needed to verify the real-world cost-effectiveness of the CSC intervention when implemented in routine practice and to evaluate its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness when compared to other viable stepped care interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.

SUBMITTER: Lee Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8392705 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care for depression is more effective in improving treatment outcomes than primary care physicians' (PCPs) usual care (UC). However, few trials of collaborative care have targeted anxiety.ObjectiveTo examine the impact and 12-month durability of a centralized, telephone-delivered, stepped collaborative care intervention (CC) for treating anxiety disorders across a network of primary care practices.DesignRandomized controlled trial with blinded outcome assessments.ParticipantsA total of 329 patients aged 18-64 referred by their PCPs in response to an electronic medical record (EMR) prompt. They include 250 highly anxious patients randomized to either CC or to UC, and 79 moderately anxious patients who were triaged to a watchful waiting (WW) cohort and later randomized if their conditions clinically deteriorated.InterventionTwelve months of telephone-delivered CC involving non-mental health professionals who provided patients with basic psycho-education, assessed preferences for guideline-based pharmacotherapy, monitored treatment responses, and informed PCPs of their patients' care preferences and progress via the EMR.Main measuresMental health-related quality of life ([HRQoL]; SF-36 MCS); secondary outcomes: anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [SIGH-A], Panic Disorder Severity Scale) and mood (PHQ-9).Key resultsAt 12-month follow-up, highly anxious patients randomized to CC reported improved mental HRQoL (effect size [ES]: 0.38 [95 % CI: 0.13-0.63]; P = 0.003), anxiety (SIGH-A ES: 0.30 [0.05-0.55]; P = 0.02), and mood (ES: 0.45 [0.19-0.71] P = 0.001) versus UC. These improvements were sustained for 12 months among African-Americans (ES: 0.70-1.14) and men (ES: 0.43-0.93). Of the 79 WW patients, 29 % met severity criteria for randomization, and regardless of treatment assignment, WW patients reported fewer anxiety and mood symptoms and better mental HRQoL over the full 24-month follow-up period than highly anxious patients who were randomized at baseline.ConclusionsTelephone-delivered, centralized, stepped CC improves mental HRQoL, anxiety and mood symptoms. These improvements were durable and particularly evident among those most anxious at baseline, and among African-Americans and men.

Project description:BackgroundInpatient rehabilitation services are challenged by increasing demand. Where appropriate, a shift in service models towards more community-oriented approaches may improve efficiency. We aimed to estimate the hypothetical cost of delivering a consensus-based rehabilitation in the home (RITH) model as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning following medical illness, surgery or treatment for cancer, compared to the cost of inpatient rehabilitation.MethodsData were drawn from the following sources: the results of a Delphi survey with health professionals working in the field of rehabilitation in Australia; publicly available data and reports; and the expert opinion of the project team. Delphi survey data were analysed descriptively. The costing model was developed using assumptions based on the sources described above and was restricted to the Australian National Subacute and Non-Acute Patient Classification (AN-SNAP) classes 4AR1 to 4AR4, which comprise around 73% of all reconditioning episodes in Australia. RITH cost modelling estimates were compared to the known cost of inpatient rehabilitation. Where weighted averages are provided, these were determined based on the modelled number of inpatient reconditioning episodes per annum that might be substitutable by RITH.ResultsThe cost modelling estimated the weighted average cost of a RITH reconditioning episode (which mirrors an inpatient reconditioning episode in intensity and duration) for AN-SNAP classes 4AR1 to 4AR4, to be A$11,371, which is 28.1% less than the equivalent weighted average public inpatient cost (of A$15,820). This represents hypothetical savings of A$4,449 per RITH reconditioning substituted episode of care.ConclusionsThe hypothetical cost of a model of RITH which would provide patients with as comprehensive a rehabilitation service as received in inpatient rehabilitation, has been determined. Findings suggest potential cost savings to the public hospital sector. Future research should focus on trials which compare actual clinical and cost outcomes of RITH for patients in the reconditioning impairment category, to inpatient rehabilitation.

Project description:Adolescent refugees and asylum seekers (ARAS) are highly vulnerable to mental health problems. Stepped care models (SCM) and culturally sensitive therapies offer promising treatment approaches to effectively provide necessary medical and psychological support. To our knowledge, we were the first to investigate whether a culturally sensitive SCM will reduce symptoms of depression and PTSD in ARAS more effectively and efficiently than treatment as usual (TAU). We conducted a multicentric, randomized, controlled and rater-blinded trial across Germany with ARAS between the ages of 14 to 21 years. Participants (N = 158) were stratified by their level of depressive symptom severity and then equally randomized to either SCM or TAU. Depending on their severity level, SCM participants were allocated to tailored interventions. Symptom changes were assessed for depression (PHQ) and PTSD (CATS) at four time points, with the primary end point at post-intervention after 12 weeks. Based on an intention-to-treat sample, we used a linear mixed model approach for the main statistical analyses. Further evaluations included cost-utility analyses, sensitivity analyses, follow-up-analyses, response and remission rates and subgroup analysis. We found a significant reduction of PHQ (d = 0.52) and CATS (d = 0.27) scores in both groups. However, there was no significant difference between SCM and TAU. Cost-utility analyses indicated that SCM generated greater cost-utility when measured as quality-adjusted life years compared to TAU. Subgroup analysis revealed different effects for the SCM interventions depending on the outcome measure. Although culturally sensitive, SCMs did not prove to be more effective in symptom change and represent a more cost-effective treatment alternative for mentally burdened ARAS. Our research contributes to the optimization of clinical productivity and the improvement of therapeutic care for ARAS. Disorder-specific interventions should be further investigated.

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:BackgroundThis study evaluated whether clinical and economic outcomes from CBT for child anxiety disorders in the context of maternal anxiety disorders are improved by adding treatment focused on (a) maternal anxiety disorders or (b) mother-child interactions.MethodsTwo hundred and eleven children (7-12 years, 85% White British, 52% female) with a primary anxiety disorder, whose mothers also had a current anxiety disorder, were randomised to receive (a) child-focused CBT with nonspecific control interventions (CCBT+Con), (b) CCBT with CBT for the maternal anxiety disorder (CCBT+MCBT), or (c) CCBT with an intervention targeting the mother-child interaction (CCBT+MCI). A cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective was conducted using mother/child combined quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). [Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/isrctn19762288].ResultsMCBT was associated with immediate reductions in maternal anxiety compared to the nonspecific control; however, after children had also received CCBT, maternal outcomes in the CCBT+MCI and CCBT+Con arms improved and CCBT+MCBT was no longer superior. Neither CCBT+MCBT nor CCBT+MCI conferred a benefit over CCBT+Con in terms of child anxiety disorder diagnoses post-treatment [primary outcome] (adj RR: 1.22 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.67), p = .23; adj RR: 1.21 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.65), p = .24, respectively) or global improvement ratings (adj RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.57), p = .06; adj RR: 1.18 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.50), p = .17) or six and 12 months later. No significant differences between the groups were found on the main economic outcome measures (child/mother combined QALY mean difference: CCBT+MCBT vs. CCBT+Con: -0.04 (95% CI: -0.12, 0.04), p = .29; CCBT+MCI vs. CCBT+Con: 0.02 (95% CI: -0.05, -0.09), p = .54). CCBT+MCI was associated with nonsignificantly higher costs than CCBT (mean difference: £154 (95% CI: -£1,239, £1,547), p = .83) but, when taking into account sampling uncertainty, it may be cost-effective compared with CCBT alone.ConclusionsGood outcomes were achieved for children and their mothers across treatment arms. There was no evidence of significant clinical benefit from supplementing CCBT with either CBT for the maternal anxiety disorder or treatment focussed on mother-child interactions, but the addition of MCI (and not MCBT) may be cost-effective.