Cargando…
Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)
BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. METHODS: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25121991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104225 |
_version_ | 1782330726412189696 |
---|---|
author | Green, Colin Richards, David A. Hill, Jacqueline J. Gask, Linda Lovell, Karina Chew-Graham, Carolyn Bower, Peter Cape, John Pilling, Stephen Araya, Ricardo Kessler, David Bland, J. Martin Gilbody, Simon Lewis, Glyn Manning, Chris Hughes-Morley, Adwoa Barkham, Michael |
author_facet | Green, Colin Richards, David A. Hill, Jacqueline J. Gask, Linda Lovell, Karina Chew-Graham, Carolyn Bower, Peter Cape, John Pilling, Stephen Araya, Ricardo Kessler, David Bland, J. Martin Gilbody, Simon Lewis, Glyn Manning, Chris Hughes-Morley, Adwoa Barkham, Michael |
author_sort | Green, Colin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. METHODS: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: –0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: –202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. CONCLUSION: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4133193 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41331932014-08-19 Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET) Green, Colin Richards, David A. Hill, Jacqueline J. Gask, Linda Lovell, Karina Chew-Graham, Carolyn Bower, Peter Cape, John Pilling, Stephen Araya, Ricardo Kessler, David Bland, J. Martin Gilbody, Simon Lewis, Glyn Manning, Chris Hughes-Morley, Adwoa Barkham, Michael PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. METHODS: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: –0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: –202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. CONCLUSION: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. Public Library of Science 2014-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4133193/ /pubmed/25121991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104225 Text en © 2014 Green et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Green, Colin Richards, David A. Hill, Jacqueline J. Gask, Linda Lovell, Karina Chew-Graham, Carolyn Bower, Peter Cape, John Pilling, Stephen Araya, Ricardo Kessler, David Bland, J. Martin Gilbody, Simon Lewis, Glyn Manning, Chris Hughes-Morley, Adwoa Barkham, Michael Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET) |
title | Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET) |
title_full | Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET) |
title_fullStr | Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET) |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET) |
title_short | Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET) |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in uk primary care: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (cadet) |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25121991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104225 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT greencolin costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT richardsdavida costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT hilljacquelinej costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT gasklinda costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT lovellkarina costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT chewgrahamcarolyn costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT bowerpeter costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT capejohn costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT pillingstephen costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT arayaricardo costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT kesslerdavid costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT blandjmartin costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT gilbodysimon costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT lewisglyn costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT manningchris costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT hughesmorleyadwoa costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet AT barkhammichael costeffectivenessofcollaborativecarefordepressioninukprimarycareeconomicevaluationofarandomisedcontrolledtrialcadet |