OBJECTIVE\nThe authors evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of stepped collaborative care for patients with persistent depressive symptoms after usual primary care management.\n\n\nMETHOD\nPrimary care patients initiating antidepressant treatment completed a standardized telephone assessment 6-8 weeks after the initial prescription. Those with persistent major depression or significant subthreshold depressive symptoms were randomly assigned to continued usual care or collaborative care. The collaborative care included systematic patient education, an initial visit with a consulting psychiatrist, 2-4 months of shared care by the psychiatrist and primary care physician, and monitoring of follow-up visits and adherence to medication regimen. Clinical outcomes were assessed through blinded telephone assessments at 1, 3, and 6 months. Health services utilization and costs were assessed through health plan claims and accounting data.\n\n\nRESULTS\nPatients receiving collaborative care experienced a mean of 16.7 additional depression-free days over 6 months. The mean incremental cost of depression treatment in this program was $357. The additional cost was attributable to greater expenditures for antidepressant prescriptions and outpatient visits. No offsetting decrease in use of other health services was observed. The incremental cost-effectiveness was $21.44 per depression-free day.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nA stepped collaborative care program for depressed primary care patients led to substantial increases in treatment effectiveness and moderate increases in costs. These findings are consistent with those of other randomized trials. Improving outcomes of depression treatment in primary care requires investment of additional resources, but the return on this investment is comparable to that of many other widely accepted medical interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for primary care patients with persistent depression

The objective of this review was to evaluate the use of all direct and indirect methods used to estimate health utilities in both children and adolescents. Utilities measured pre- and post-intervention are combined with the time over which health states are experienced to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) estimate the cost-effectiveness of health technologies based on their costs and benefits using QALYs as a measure of benefit. The accurate measurement of QALYs is dependent on using appropriate methods to elicit health utilities. We sought studies that measured health utilities directly from patients or their proxies. We did not exclude those studies that also included adults in the analysis, but excluded those studies focused only on adults. We evaluated 90 studies from a total of 1,780 selected from the databases. 47 (52%) studies were CUAs incorporated into randomised clinical trials; 23 (26%) were health-state utility assessments; 8 (9%) validated methods and 12 (13%) compared existing or new methods. 22 unique direct or indirect calculation methods were used a total of 137 times. Direct calculation through standard gamble, time trade-off and visual analogue scale was used 32 times. The EuroQol EQ-5D was the most frequently-used single method, selected for 41 studies. 15 of the methods used were generic methods and the remaining 7 were disease-specific. 48 of the 90 studies (53%) used some form of proxy, with 26 (29%) using proxies exclusively to estimate health utilities. Several child- and adolescent-specific methods are still being developed and validated, leaving many studies using methods that have not been designed or validated for use in children or adolescents. Several studies failed to justify using proxy respondents rather than administering the methods directly to the patients. Only two studies examined missing responses to the methods administered with respect to the patients' ages.

/pdf/measuring-health-utilities-in-children-and-adolescents-a-3vdfqztlw2.pdf

Measuring Health Utilities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE Depressive symptoms are common and, when coexisting with diabetes, worsen outcomes and increase health care costs. We evaluated a nurse case-manager–based collaborative primary care team model to improve depressive symptoms in diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a controlled implementation trial in four nonmetropolitan primary care networks. Eligible patients had type 2 diabetes and screened positive for depressive symptoms, based on a Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) score of ≥10. Patients were allocated using an “on-off” monthly time series. Intervention consisted of case-managers working 1:1 with patients to deliver individualized care. The main outcome was improvement in PHQ scores at 12 months. A concurrent cohort of 71 comparable patients was used as nonscreened usual care control subjects. RESULTS Of 1,924 patients screened, 476 (25%) had a PHQ score >10. Of these, 95 were allocated to intervention and 62 to active control. There were no baseline differences between groups: mean age was 57.8 years, 55% were women, and the mean PHQ score was 14.5 (SD 3.7). Intervention patients had greater 12-month improvements in PHQ (7.3 [SD 5.6]) compared with active-control subjects (5.2 [SD 5.7], P = 0.015). Recovery of depressive symptoms (i.e., PHQ reduced by 50%) was greater among intervention patients (61% vs. 44%, P = 0.03). Compared with trial patients, nonscreened control subjects had significantly less improvement at 12 months in the PHQ score (3.2 [SD 4.9]) and lower rates of recovery (24%, P CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes who screened positive for depressive symptoms, collaborative care improved depressive symptoms, but physician notification and follow-up was also a clinically effective initial strategy compared with usual care.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/37/12/3220.full.pdf

Collaborative Care Versus Screening and Follow-up for Patients With Diabetes and Depressive Symptoms: Results of a Primary-Care Based Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a collaborative care programme for depression in primary care.

Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008–2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work. Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs. Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.

/pdf/considering-the-societal-perspective-in-economic-evaluations-2rpb1xl240.pdf

Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression

Background 

Case management undertaken by healthcare assistants in small primary care practices is effective in improving depression symptoms and adherence in patients with major depression.

Aims 

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of depression case management by healthcare assistants in small primary care practices.

Method 

Cost-effectiveness analysis on the basis of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (2005-2008): practice-based healthcare assistants in 74 practices provided case management to 562 patients with major depression over 1 year. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated as the ratio of differences in mean costs and mean number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Our secondary outcome was the mean depression-free days (DFDs) between the intervention and control group at 24-month follow-up. The study was registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry: [ISRCTN66386086][1].

Results 

Intervention v. control group: no significant difference in QALYs; significantly more DFDs (mean: 373 v. 311, P <0.01); no significant difference in mean direct healthcare costs (€4495 v. €3506, P = 0.16); considerably lower mean indirect costs (€5228 v. €7539, P = 0.06), resulting in lower total costs (€9723 v. €11 045, P = 0.41). The point estimate for the cost-utility ratio was €38 429 per QALY gained if only direct costs were considered, and ‘dominance’ of the intervention if total costs were considered. Yet, regardless of decision makers’ willingness to pay per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was never above 90%.

Conclusions 

In small primary care practices, 1 year of case management did not increase the number of QALYs but it did increase the number of DFDs. The intervention was likely to be cost-effective.

 [1]: /external-ref?link_type=ISRCTN&access_num=ISRCTN66386086

/pdf/cost-effectiveness-of-depression-case-management-in-small-7h0vwivsns.pdf

Cost-effectiveness of depression case management in small practices

OBJECTIVES Case management by health care assistants in small primary care practices has proven effective in improving depression symptoms in depressive patients. Resource consumption and costs of this intervention have not been evaluated yet. METHODS Health care assistants and general practitioners of 15 participating practices were interviewed for intervention-related time expenditures. Intervention costs were based on individual labour costs. RESULTS The annual time spent was 6.3 h per patient for health care assistants and 3.6 h for general practitioners (mean 8.9 patients per practice). The case management caused costs of € 277 per patient and year. CONCLUSIONS A telephone-based case management as add-on therapy improves quality of primary care depression therapy while causing only moderate costs for health care providers.

[Cost structure of a telephone-based case management in primary care depression therapy].

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Steffen Baron

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Cost-effectiveness of depression case management in small practices

[Cost structure of a telephone-based case management in primary care depression therapy].