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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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