Cost-effectiveness of a primary care depression intervention

被引:63
作者
Pyne, JM
Rost, KM
Zhang, M
Williams, DK
Smith, J
Fortney, J
机构
[1] Cent Arkansas Vet Healthcare Syst, Ctr Mental Healthcare Outcomes Res, HSRD, N Little Rock, AR 72114 USA
[2] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Dept Psychiat, Little Rock, AR 72205 USA
[3] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Dept Biometry, Little Rock, AR 72205 USA
[4] Univ Colorado, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Family Med, Denver, CO USA
关键词
cost-benefit analysis; depression; quality of life; primary health care;
D O I
10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20611.x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVEA: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement depression intervention (enhanced care) in primary care settings relative to usual care. DESIGN: Following stratification, we randomized 12 primary care practices to enhanced or usual care conditions and followed patients for 12 months. SETTING: Primary care practices located in 10 states across the United States. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eleven patients beginning a new treatment episode for major depression. INTERVENTIONS: Training the primary care team to assess, educate, and monitor depressed patients during the acute and continuation stages of their depression treatment episode over 1 year. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness was measured by calculating incremental (enhanced minus usual care) costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from SF-36 data. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the main analysis was $15,463 per QALY. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the sensitivity analyses ranged from $11,341 (using geographic block variables to control for pre-intervention service utilization) to $19,976 (increasing the cost estimates by 50%) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement depression intervention was cost-effective relative to usual care compared to cost-effectiveness ratios for common primary care interventions and commonly cited cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds for intervention implementation.
引用
收藏
页码:432 / U2
页数:11
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]   POLICY SPACE AREAS AND PROPERTIES OF BENEFIT-COST UTILITY ANALYSIS [J].
ANDERSON, JP ;
BUSH, JW ;
CHEN, M ;
DOLENC, D .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1986, 255 (06) :794-795
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials
[3]  
[Anonymous], COMP INT DIAGN INT V
[4]   The effectiveness of cost-effectiveness analysis in containing costs [J].
Azimi, NA ;
Welch, HG .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1998, 13 (10) :664-669
[5]   AURANOFIN THERAPY AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID-ARTHRITIS - RESULTS OF A MULTICENTER TRIAL [J].
BOMBARDIER, C ;
WARE, J ;
RUSSELL, IJ ;
LARSON, M ;
CHALMERS, A ;
READ, JL .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1986, 81 (04) :565-578
[6]   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
[7]  
Briggs AH, 1997, HEALTH ECON, V6, P327, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::AID-HEC282>3.0.CO
[8]  
2-W
[9]  
*DEPR GUID PAN, 1993, DEPR PRIM CAR TREATM, P2
[10]  
*DEPR GUID PAN, 1993, DEPR PRIM CAR DET DI, P1