Are psychological treatments for depression in primary care cost-effective?

Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics (Impact Factor: 0.97). 04/2008; 11(1):3-15.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Depression is a highly prevalent condition that is associated with high levels of work absenteeism and high health care costs. Most patients are treated in primary care. A large group of patients prefers psychological treatments to antidepressants.
To systematically review the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of psychological treatments, psychotherapy and counselling, in comparison with usual care or antidepressant treatment in adult primary care patients with depression.
A computer-assisted search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library was carried out. Two independent reviewers selected studies for the review, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies.
Seven studies were included in the review. Forms of psychotherapy that were evaluated were cognitive behavioural therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy and couple therapy. Usual care generally consisted of care as usually provided by the general practitioner. No conclusion can be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of the above mentioned forms of psychotherapy in comparison with usual care or antidepressant treatment. The cost-effectiveness of counselling in comparison with usual care and antidepressant therapy is yet to be established. Meta-analyses showed that psychotherapy was significantly more expensive than usual care, but not significantly more expensive than antidepressant treatment. Counselling was associated with no statistically significant differences in costs and effects in comparison with usual care in the pooled analysis.
Based on this review, no firm conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy and counselling in primary care can be drawn. Most studies had methodological shortcomings, which limit the generalisibility of the results.
Given the reluctance of patients to use antidepressants and the large economic impact of depression, policy makers have a need for well designed and sufficiently powered economic evaluations of psychological treatments. The available evidence seems to indicate that psychotherapy has more substantial clinical effects than counselling. Therefore, the emphasis should be on economic evaluations of forms of psychotherapy that have proved to be clinically effective.
There are indications that the cost-effectiveness of depression treatment on the whole may be improved by incorporating psychological treatments into enhanced care models, tailored to the needs of individual patients and/or by providing them by trained nurses instead of psychologists or psychotherapists. Further research should investigate these patient tailored, stepped care treatment modalities for depression treatment.

Download full-text


Available from: Harm Van Marwijk, Jan 20, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Therapist-delivered online cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) has been found to be effective for depression in primary care. To determine the cost-effectiveness of online CBT compared with usual care. Economic evaluation at 8 months alongside a randomised controlled trial. Cost to the National Health Service (NHS), personal costs, and the value of lost productivity, each compared with outcomes based on the Beck Depression Inventory and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental analysis indicated the NHS cost per QALY gain. Online CBT was more expensive than usual care, although the outcomes for the CBT group were better. Cost per QALY gain based on complete case data was £17,173, and £10,083 when missing data were imputed. Online CBT delivered by a therapist in real time is likely to be cost-effective compared with usual care if society is willing to pay at least £20,000 per QALY; it could be a useful alternative to face-to-face CBT.
    The British journal of psychiatry: the journal of mental science 10/2010; 197(4):297-304. DOI:10.1192/bjp.bp.109.073080 · 7.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current gold standard approaches to the treatment of depression include pharmacotherapeutic and psychotherapeutic interventions with social support. Due to current controversies concerning the efficacy of antidepressants in randomized controlled trials, the generalizability of study findings to wider clinical practice and the increasing importance of socioeconomic considerations, it seems timely to address the uncertainty of concerned patients and relatives, and their treating psychiatrists and general practitioners. We therefore discuss both the efficacy and clinical effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of depressive disorders. We explain and clarify useful measures for assessing clinically meaningful antidepressant treatment effects and the types of studies that are useful for addressing uncertainties. This includes considerations of methodological issues in randomized controlled studies, meta-analyses, and effectiveness studies. Furthermore, we summarize the differential efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants with distinct pharmacodynamic properties, and differences between studies using antidepressants and/or psychotherapy. We also address the differential effectiveness of antidepressant drugs with differing modes of action and in varying subtypes of depressive disorder. After highlighting the clinical usefulness of treatment algorithms and the divergent biological, psychological, and clinical efforts to predict the effectiveness of antidepressant treatments, we conclude that the spectrum of different antidepressant treatments has broadened over the last few decades. The efficacy and clinical effectiveness of antidepressants is statistically significant, clinically relevant, and proven repeatedly. Further optimization of treatment can be helped by clearly structured treatment algorithms and the implementation of psychotherapeutic interventions. Modern individualized antidepressant treatment is in most cases a well-tolerated and efficacious approach to minimize the negative impact of otherwise potentially devastating and life-threatening outcomes in depressive disorders.
    European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 11/2011; 261 Suppl 3:207-45. DOI:10.1007/s00406-011-0259-6 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To give an overview of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) and financial return of worksite mental health interventions. A systematic search was conducted in relevant databases. Included economic evaluations were classified into two groups based on type of intervention: (1) aimed at prevention or treatment of mental health problems among workers or (2) aimed at return to work (RTW) for workers sick-listed from mental health problems. The quality of the included economic evaluations was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC-list). Ten economic evaluations were included in this systematic review. All four economic evaluations on the prevention or treatment of mental health problems found a positive cost-benefit ratio, although three of these studies had low to moderate methodological quality. In five out of six economic evaluation studies on RTW interventions, no favourable CE or cost-benefit balance was found. One study of moderate methodological quality reported on a positive CE balance. Due to a limited number of economic evaluations on worksite mental health interventions of which a majority was lacking methodological quality or lacking evidence, only a tentative conclusion can be drawn from the results of this systematic review. Worksite interventions to prevent or treat mental health problems might be cost-effective, while those RTW interventions that included a full economic evaluation aimed at depressed employees do not seem to be cost-beneficial. More high-quality economic evaluation studies of effective worksite mental health interventions are needed to get more insight into the economic impact of worksite mental health interventions.
    Occupational and environmental medicine 08/2012; 69(11):837-45. DOI:10.1136/oemed-2012-100668 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more