Incremental cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for panic disorder
ABSTRACT Panic disorder is a prevalent, often disabling, disorder among primary-care patients, but there are large gaps in quality of treatment in primary care. This study describes the incremental cost-effectiveness of a combined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and pharmacotherapy intervention for patients with panic disorder versus usual primary-care treatment.
This randomized control trial recruited 232 primary-care patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for panic disorder from March 2000 to March 2002 from six primary-care clinics from university-affiliated clinics at the University of Washington (Seattle) and University of California (Los Angeles and San Diego). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either treatment as usual or a combined CBT and pharmacotherapy intervention for panic disorder delivered in primary care by a mental health therapist. Intervention patients had up to six sessions of CBT modified for the primary-care setting in the first 12 weeks, and up to six telephone follow-ups over the next 9 months. The primary outcome variables were total out-patient costs, anxiety-free days (AFDs) and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs).
Relative to usual care, intervention patients experienced 60.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 42.9-77.9] more AFDs over a 12-month period. Total incremental out-patient costs were 492 US dollars higher (95% CI 236-747 US dollars ) in intervention versus usual care patients with a cost per additional AFD of 8.40 US dollars (95% CI 2.80-14.0 US dollars ) and a cost per QALY ranging from 14,158 US dollars (95% CI 6,791-21,496 US dollars ) to 24,776 US dollars (95% CI 11,885-37,618 US dollars ). The cost per QALY estimate is well within the range of other commonly accepted medical interventions such as statin use and treatment of hypertension.
The combined CBT and pharmacotherapy intervention was associated with a robust clinical improvement compared to usual care with a moderate increase in ambulatory costs.
SourceAvailable from: Margarita Alegria[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Rising mental health costs have brought with them the pressing need to identify cost-effective treatments. Identifying cost-effective treatments for depression among Latinos is particularly relevant given substantial disparities in access to depression treatment for Latinos compared to non-Latino whites.The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 06/2014; 17(2):41-50. · 0.97 Impact Factor
Article: What is integrated care?[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Increasing awareness of mental illness's impact on medical and psychiatric health has accelerated global efforts to integrate medical and behavioural health services. As the field of integration has advanced, numerous integrated programmes have been implemented. In examining the impact of these programmes, it is important to maintain a standardized vocabulary to describe the various components of their integration. Additionally important is examination of how these programmes impact elements of patient care and the healthcare system. Specifically, what value do they bring? This article will discuss the importance of carefully assessing the value integrated services bring to patients, and questioning whether they do so in ways in which today's segregated world of medical and behavioural health cannot. This article will also explore the various settings in which medical and behavioural integration can bring added value.International Review of Psychiatry 01/2015; 26(6). DOI:10.3109/09540261.2014.964189 · 1.80 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Background A critical part of future service delivery will involve improving the degree to which people become engaged in ‘self-management’. Providing better support for self-management has the potential to make a significant contribution to NHS efficiency, as well as providing benefits in patient health and quality of care. Objective To determine which models of self-management support are associated with significant reductions in health services utilisation (including hospital use) without compromising outcomes, among patients with long-term conditions. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EconLit (the American Economic Association’s electronic bibliography), EMBASE, Health Economics Evaluations Database, MEDLINE (the US National Library of Medicine’s database), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and PsycINFO (the behavioural science and mental health database), as well as the reference lists of published reviews of self-management support. Methods We included patients with long-term conditions in all health-care settings and self-management support interventions with varying levels of additional professional support and input from multidisciplinary teams. Main outcome measures were quantitative measures of service utilisation (including hospital use) and quality of life (QoL). We presented the results for each condition group using a permutation plot, plotting the effect of interventions on utilisation and outcomes simultaneously and placing them in quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane depending on the pattern of outcomes. We also conducted conventional meta-analyses of outcomes. Results We found 184 studies that met the inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. The most common categories of long-term conditions included in the studies were cardiovascular (29%), respiratory (24%) and mental health (16%). Of the interventions, 5% were categorised as ‘pure self-management’ (without additional professional support), 20% as ‘supported self-management’ (< 2 hours’ support), 47% as ‘intensive self-management’ (> 2 hours’ support) and 28% as ‘case management’ (> 2 hours’ support including input from a multidisciplinary team). We analysed data across categories of long-term conditions and also analysed comparing self-management support (pure, supported, intense) with case management. Only a minority of self-management support studies reported reductions in health-care utilisation in association with decrements in health. Self-management support was associated with small but significant improvements in QoL. Evidence for significant reductions in utilisation following self-management support interventions were strongest for interventions in respiratory and cardiovascular disorders. Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results, as we found evidence that studies at higher risk of bias were more likely to report benefits on some outcomes. Data on hospital use outcomes were also consistent with the possibility of small-study bias. Limitations Self-management support is a complex area in which to undertake literature searches. Our analyses were limited by poor reporting of outcomes in the included studies, especially concerning health-care utilisation and costs. Conclusions Very few self-management support interventions achieve reductions in utilisation while compromising patient outcomes. Evidence for significant reductions in utilisation were strongest for respiratory disorders and cardiac disorders. Research priorities relate to better reporting of the content of self-management support, exploration of the impact of multimorbidity and assessment of factors influencing the wider implementation of self-management support. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002694. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.