Dataset Information

A review of economic evaluations of health care for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Preventing psychotic disorders and effective treatment in first-episode psychosis are key priorities for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This review assessed the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of health and social care interventions for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis.

Methods

Electronic searches were conducted using the PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify relevant published full economic evaluations published before August 2020. Full-text English-language studies reporting a full economic evaluation of a health or social care intervention aiming to reduce or prevent symptoms in people at risk of psychosis or experiencing first-episode psychosis were included. Screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were performed using pre-specified criteria and forms based on the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) handbook and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist for economic evaluations. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42018108226). Results were summarised qualitatively.

Results

Searching identified 1,628 citations (1,326 following the removal of duplications). After two stages of screening 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Interventions were varied and included multidisciplinary care, antipsychotic medication, psychological therapy, and assertive outreach. Evidence was limited in the at-risk group with only four identified studies, though all interventions were found to be cost-effective with a high probability (> 80%). A more substantial evidence base was identified for first-episode psychosis (11 studies), with a focus on early intervention (7/11 studies) which again had positive conclusions though with greater uncertainty.

Conclusions

Study findings generally concluded interventions were cost-effective. The evidence for the population who are at-risk of psychosis was limited, and though there were more studies for the population with first-episode psychosis, limitations of the evidence base (including generalisability and heterogeneity across the methods used) affect the certainty of conclusions.

SUBMITTER: Shields GE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8851734 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A review of economic evaluations of health care for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis.

Shields Gemma E GE Buck Deborah D Varese Filippo F Yung Alison R AR Thompson Andrew A Husain Nusrat N Broome Matthew R MR Upthegrove Rachel R Byrne Rory R Davies Linda M LM

BMC psychiatry 20220217 1

<h4>Background</h4>Preventing psychotic disorders and effective treatment in first-episode psychosis are key priorities for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This review assessed the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of health and social care interventions for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic searches were conducted using the PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify relevant published full economic evalua ...[more]

PMID: 35177010

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs. METHODS:A PRISMA compliant search of the literature between 2000 and April 2018 was conducted to identify full economic evaluations of youth focussed interventions for at risk young people. Duplicates were removed and two researchers independently screened the article titles and abstracts according to PICOS criteria for exclusion and inclusion. The remaining full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of the included articles was conducted using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS:The database, grey literature and hand searches located 488 studies of interventions for at risk young people. After preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, 104 studies remained for full text examination and 29 empirical studies containing 32 separate economic evaluations were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. These comprised 13 cost-benefit analyses (41%), 17 cost-effectiveness analyses (53%), one cost-utility analysis (3%) and a social return on investment (3%). Three main methodological challenges were identified: 1. attribution of effects; 2. measuring and valuing outcomes; and 3. identifying relevant costs and consequences. CONCLUSIONS:A cost-benefit analysis would best capture the dynamic nature of a multi-component intervention for high risk young people, incorporating broader intersectoral outcomes and enabling measurement of more domains of risk. Prospective long-term data collection and a strong study design that incorporates a control group contribute to the quality of economic evaluation. Extrapolation of impact into the future is important for this population, in order to account for the time lag in effect of many impacts and benefits arising from youth interventions.

Project description:BackgroundFirst-episode psychosis (FEP) imposes a substantial burden not only on the individual affected but also on their families. Given that FEP usually occurs during adolescence, families overtake a big part of informal care. Early family interventions, especially psychoeducation, are crucial for informal family caregivers to best support the recovery of their loved one with FEP and to reduce the risk of a psychotic relapse as much as possible, but also to avoid chronic stress within the family due to the burden of care. Digital health interventions offer the possibility to access help quicker, use less resources, and improve informal family caregiver outcomes, for example, by reducing stress and improving caregiver quality of life.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically identify studies on digital health interventions for informal family caregivers of people with FEP and to describe and synthesize the available literature on user experience, as well as the effectiveness of such digital applications on the clinical outcomes, consisting of (1) perceived caregiver stress, (2) expressed emotion, and (3) parental self-efficacy.MethodsA systematic search was carried out across 4 electronic databases. In addition, reference lists of relevant studies were hand-searched. This review aimed to include only primary studies on informal family caregivers, who had to care for a person with FEP between 15 years and 40 years of age and a diagnosis of FEP with onset of observed symptoms within the past 5 years. All types of digital interventions were included. This systematic review is aligned with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 guidelines.ResultsThe search identified 7 studies that reported on user experience or effectiveness of digital health interventions on perceived caregiver stress, expressed emotion, and parental self-efficacy, including 377 informal family FEP caregivers across trials. Digital health interventions-web-based, videoconferences, and mHealth-were well accepted and perceived as relevant, easy to use, and helpful by informal family FEP caregivers. Psychoeducational content was rated as the most important across studies. Perceived caregiver stress, expressed emotion, and parental self-efficacy improved in all studies that reported on these clinical outcomes.ConclusionsThe results of this review suggest that digital health interventions aimed at informal family caregivers of individuals with FEP can improve relevant clinical outcomes, with participants reporting a positive user experience. However, for some interventions reviewed, specialized in-person family care outperformed the digital intervention and partially led to better results in perceived caregiver stress and parental self-efficacy. Therefore, while digital interventions present a promising approach to alleviate the burden of care and improve informal family FEP caregiver outcomes, more studies with well-powered experimental designs are needed to further investigate the effectiveness of such applications in this population.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024536715; https://tinyurl.com/bdd3u7v9.

Project description:BackgroundSchizophrenia spectrum disorders exert a large and disproportionate economic impact. Early intervention services may be able to alleviate the burden of schizophrenia spectrum disorders on diagnosed individuals, caregivers, and society at large. Economic analyses of observational studies have supported investments in specialized team-based care for early psychosis; however, questions remain regarding the economic viability of first-episode services in the fragmented U.S. healthcare system. The clinic for Specialized Treatment Early in Psychosis (STEP) was established in 2006, to explicitly model a nationally-relevant U.S. public-sector early intervention service. The purpose of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of STEP, a Coordinated Specialty Care service (CSC) based in a U.S. State-funded community mental health center, relative to usual treatment (UT).MethodsEligible patients were within 5 years of psychosis onset and had no more than 12 weeks of lifetime antipsychotic exposure. Participants were randomized to STEP or UT. The annual per-patient cost of the STEP intervention per se was estimated assuming a steady-state caseload of 30 patients. A cost-offset analysis was conducted to estimate the net value of STEP from a third-party payer perspective. Participant healthcare service utilization was evaluated at 6 months and over the entire 12 months post randomization. Generalized linear model multivariable regressions were used to estimate the effect of STEP on healthcare costs over time, and generate predicted mean costs, which were combined with the per-patient cost of STEP.ResultsThe annual per-patient cost of STEP was $1,984. STEP participants were significantly less likely to have any inpatient or ED visits; among individuals who did use such services in a given period, the associated costs were significantly lower for STEP participants at month 12. We did not observe a similar effect with regard to other healthcare services. The predicted average total costs were lower for STEP than UT, indicating a net benefit for STEP of $1,029 at month 6 and $2,991 at month 12; however, the differences were not statistically significant.ConclusionsOur findings are promising with regard to the value of STEP to third-party payers.

Dataset Information

A review of economic evaluations of health care for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A review of economic evaluations of health care for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets