Costs and consequences of enhanced primary care for depression - Systematic review of randomised economic evaluations

被引:125
作者
Gilbody, Simon [1 ]
Bower, Peter
Whitty, Paula
机构
[1] Univ York, Dept Hlth Sci, York YO10 6DD, N Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Manchester, Natl Primary Care Res & Dev Ctr, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
[3] Univ Newcastle Upon Tyne, Ctr Hlth Serv Res, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, Tyne & Wear, England
关键词
D O I
10.1192/bjp.bp.105.016006
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Background A number of enhancement strategies have been proposed to improve the quality and outcome of care for depression in primary care settings. Decision-makers are likely to need to know whether these interventions are costeffective in routine primary care settings. Method We conducted a systematic review of all full economic evaluations (cost effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) accompanying randomised controlled trials of enhanced primary care for depression. Costs were standardised to UK pounds/US dollars and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were visually summarised using a permutation matrix. Results We identified 11 full economic evaluations (4757 patients). A near-uniform finding was that the interventions based upon collaborative care/case management resulted in improved outcomes but were also associated with greater costs. When considering primary care depression treatment costs alone, ICER estimates ranged from 7 pound ($13, no confidence interval given) to 13 pound ($24,95% CI - 105 to 148) per additional depression free day. Educational interventions alone were associated with increased cost and no clinical benefit. Conclusions Improved outcomes through depression management programmes using a collaborative care/case management approach can be expected, but are associated with increased cost and will require investment. Declaration of interest None.
引用
收藏
页码:297 / 308
页数:12
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]  
*AG HLTH CAR POL R, 1993, DEPR PRIM CAR
[2]   Utilising survey data to inform public policy: Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of ten mental disorders [J].
Andrews, G ;
Issakidis, C ;
Sanderson, K ;
Corry, J ;
Lapsley, H .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2004, 184 :526-533
[3]  
Andrews Gavin, 2000, J Ment Health Policy Econ, V3, P175, DOI 10.1002/mhp.96
[4]   Treating depression in primary care in low-income women in Santiago, Chile: a randomised controlled trial [J].
Araya, R ;
Rojas, G ;
Fritsch, R ;
Gaete, J ;
Rojas, M ;
Simon, G ;
Peters, TJ .
LANCET, 2003, 361 (9362) :995-1000
[5]  
BERO L, 1998, COCHRANE LIB
[6]  
Birch S., 1996, MANAGING TECHNOLOGY, P51
[7]  
BLACK WC, 1990, MED DECIS MAKING, V10, P21
[8]   Meta-analysis of data on costs from trials of counselling in primary care: using individual patient data to overcome sample size limitations in economic analyses [J].
Bower, P ;
Byford, S ;
Barber, J ;
Beecham, J ;
Simpson, S ;
Friedli, K ;
Corney, R ;
King, M ;
Harvey, I .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7401) :1247-1250
[9]   Managing common mental health disorders in primary care: conceptual models and evidence base [J].
Bower, P ;
Gilbody, S .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 330 (7495) :839-842
[10]   Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey [J].
Brazier, J ;
Usherwood, T ;
Harper, R ;
Thomas, K .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 51 (11) :1115-1128