Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review

The burden of major depressive disorder in the Middle East and North Africa region, 1990-2019

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the leading causes of disability. We aimed to report the MDD-attributable prevalence, incidence and years lived with disability (YLDs) in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region from 1990 to 2019 by age, sex and socio-demographic index (SDI).

METHODS

Publicly available data on the burden of MDD were retrieved from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2019 for the 21 countries in MENA. The counts and age-standardised rates (per 100,000) were presented, along with their corresponding 95% uncertainty intervals.

RESULTS

In 2019, MDD had an age-standardised point prevalence of 3322.1 and an incidence rate of 4921.7 per 100,000 population in MENA. Furthermore, there were 4.1 million YLDs in 2019. However, there were no substantial changes in the MDD burden over the period 1990-2019. In 2019, Palestine had the highest burden of MDD. The highest prevalence, incidence and YLDs attributable to MDD were found in the 35-39 age group. In 2019, the YLD rate in MENA was higher than the global rate for almost all age groups. Furthermore, there was a broadly negative association between the YLD rate and SDI.

CONCLUSION

The study highlights the need to prevent the disorder using a multidisciplinary approach and for the provision of cost-effective treatments for those affected, in order to increase their quality of life.

Effectiveness of a coordinated ambulatory care program for patients with mental disorders or multiple sclerosis: results of a prospective non-randomized controlled trial in South Germany

Background

The Psychiatry, Neurology, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (PNP) program of the German statutory health insurance AOK BW promotes coordinated and evidence-based specialist care with the aim of providing individualized, guideline-based outpatient care, strengthening the collaboration between health care providers, as well as reducing care costs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate its effectiveness regarding patient-reported outcomes compared to the less specialized general practitioner program (GP) and usual care (UC).

Materials and methods

AOK insured patients, who were on sick leave due to a mental disorder (affective disorder, anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder, somatoform disorder, alcohol abuse disorder, schizophrenia) or multiple sclerosis were included in the prospective non-randomized controlled study. All patients either participated in the PNP program (intervention group, IG-PNP), the general practitioner program (control group, CG-GP) or usual care (control group, CG-UC). Entropy balancing was used to adjust for baseline imbalance between groups. Primary outcome was health-related quality of life, assessed by the Short-form health survey (SF-36) 12 months after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included symptom severity, functional health, and treatment satisfaction.

Results

Of the 14,483 insured patients who were contacted, 1,104 patients participated at baseline and 725 at follow-up. The adjusted mean differences of SF-36 sum score did not significantly differ between groups: -1.89 (95%-CI = -4.60; 0.81, p = 0.170) between IG-PNP and CG-GP, and -1.42 (95%-CI = -4.05; 1.22, p = 0.293) between PNP and CG-UC. The adjusted mean differences of secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, except for a slightly higher increase of functional health in CG-UC.

Conclusion

We found no evidence that the PNP program is superior to the GP program or to usual care in terms of patient-reported outcomes or treatment satisfaction. The results are limited by the low response rate. Accordingly, future studies should strive for more representative samples. To improve the program, an integration of further collaborative care elements and guideline recommendations might be useful.

Clinical trial registration

DRKS (German Clinical Trials Register https://drks.de/search/en); identifier (DRKS00013114).

Interprofessional collaboration in primary care: what effect on patient health? A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

In a period of change in the organization of primary care, Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) is presented as one of the solutions to health issues. Although the number of inter-professional interventions grounded in primary care increases in all developed countries, evidence on the effects of these collaborations on patient-centred outcomes is patchy. The objective of our study was to assess the effects of IPC grounded in the primary care setting on patient-centred outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 01/01/1995 to 01/03/2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting the effects of IPC in primary care on patient health outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Downs and Black checklist.

RESULTS

Sixty-five articles concerning 61 interventions were analysed. A total of 43 studies were prospective and randomized. Studies were classified into 3 main categories as follows: 1) studies with patients at cardiovascular risk (28 studies)-including diabetes (18 studies) and arterial hypertension (5 studies); 2) studies including elderly and/or polypathological patients (18 studies); and 3) patients with symptoms of mental or physical disorders (15 studies). The number of included patients varied greatly (from 50 to 312,377). The proportion of studies that reported a positive effect of IPC on patient-centred outcomes was as follows: 23 out of the 28 studies including patients at cardiovascular risk, 8 out of the 18 studies of elderly or polypathological patients, and 11 out of the 12 studies of patients with mental or physical disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that IPC is effective in the management of patients at cardiovascular risk. In elderly or polypathological patients and in patients with mental or physical disorders, the number of studies remains very limited, and the results are heterogeneous. Researchers should be encouraged to perform studies based on comparative designs: it would increase evidence on the positive effect and benefits of IPC on patient variables.

Economic evaluation of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Common mental disorders (CMDs) constitute a major public health and economic burden on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic reviews of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs are limited. This systematic review examines methods, reports findings and appraises the quality of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs. We searched a range of bibliographic databases (including PubMed, EconLit, APA-PsycINFO and Cochrane library) and the African Journals Online (AJoL) and Google Scholar platforms. We used a pre-populated template to extract data and the Drummond & Jefferson checklist for quality appraisal. We present results as a narrative synthesis. The review included 26 studies, mostly from Asia (12) and Africa (9). The majority were cost-effectiveness analyses (12), some were cost-utility analyses (5), with one cost-benefit analysis or combinations of economic evaluations (8). Most interventions were considered either cost-effective or potentially cost-effective (22), with 3 interventions being not cost-effective. Limitations were noted regarding appropriateness of conclusions drawn on cost-effectiveness, the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds and application of 'societal' incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to reflect value for money (VfM) of treatments. Non-specialist health workers (NSHWs) delivered most of the treatments (16) for low-cost delivery at scale, and costs should reflect the true opportunity cost of NSHWs' time to support the development of a sustainable cadre of health care providers. There is a 4-fold increase in economic evaluations of CMD psychological treatments in the last decade over the previous one. Yet, findings from this review highlight the need for better application of economic evaluation methodology to support resource allocation towards the World Health Organization recommended first-line treatments of CMDs. We suggest impact inventories to capture societal economic gains and propose a VfM assessment framework to guide researchers in evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Incorporating Behavioral Health Providers onto Inpatient Medical Teams: A Feasibility Study

Behavioral health providers (BHPs) have long been incorporated into clinical medical settings, however, they have yet to be included in inpatient hospital settings. Inclusion of BHPs in this setting is logical given the high rates of psychosocial problems experienced by hospitalized patients and because BHPs can effectively treat psychosocial challenges, including mental health disorders and behavioral health difficulties. We worked to determine the feasibility of incorporating BHPs onto the inpatient medical team and to discover if integrating BHPs onto the team could decrease the barriers present in standard consult-liaison models of care. Researchers collected information on patient and provider satisfaction with BHP services and tracked admission diagnosis, reasons for referral, and interventions delivered. Results indicated that the integration of BHPs onto the inpatient team is feasible and reduces numerous barriers. The incorporation of BHPs onto inpatient medical teams can mitigate barriers experienced within the current consult-liaison model.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost Utility of Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review

Objectives: This systematic review provides an overview of full economic evaluations of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments, evaluates their outcomes, and highlights gaps in the literature. Data Sources: Electronic databases were searched for full economic evaluations of ADHD treatments for children, adolescents, or adults published in English or Dutch. Results: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Almost all studies that compared medication or psychosocial treatment to no treatment, placebo, or care as usual indicated that medication and psychosocial treatment were cost-effective compared to the control group. Stimulant treatment appeared to be cost-effective for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents. Only few studies focus on treatments in adults and psychosocial treatments and the number of studies with long time horizons and without industry funding is limited. Conclusions: Despite the rising interest in cost-effectiveness, this systematic review shows that more cost-effectiveness research of higher quality is warranted to aid in the optimal use of available treatments and resources for individuals with ADHD. Specifically, more studies should focus on treatments in adults and psychosocial treatments, and more studies with long time horizons and without industry funding are warranted. Nevertheless, we can conclude that treating ADHD is generally cost-effective compared to no treatment. PROSPERO: CRD42017060074. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=60074.

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: 12-month economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Objectives

To study the cost-effectiveness of a care manager organization for patients with mild to moderate depression in Swedish primary care in a 12-month perspective.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the care manager organization compared to care as usual (CAU) in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial including 192 individuals in the care manager group and 184 in the CAU group. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a health care and societal perspectives. Costs were assessed in relation to two different health outcome measures: depression free days (DFDs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results

At the 12-month follow-up, patients treated at the intervention Primary Care Centres (PCCs) with a care manager organization had larger health benefits than the group receiving usual care only at control PCCs. Mean QALY per patient was 0.73 (95% CI 0.7; 0.75) in the care manager group compared to 0.70 (95% CI 0.66; 0.73) in the CAU group. Mean DFDs was 203 (95% CI 178; 229) in the care manager group and 155 (95% CI 131; 179) in the CAU group. Further, from a societal perspective, care manager care was associated with a lower cost than care as usual, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both QALYs and DFDs. From a health care perspective care manager care was related to a low cost per QALY (36,500 SEK / €3,379) and DFD (31 SEK/€3).

Limitations

A limitation is the fact that QALY data was impaired by insufficient EQ-5D data for some patients.

Conclusions

A care manager organization at the PCC to increase quality of care for patients with mild-moderate depression shows high health benefits, with no decay over time, and high cost-effectiveness both from a health care and a societal perspective.

Trial registration details: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.com (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378272) in 02/02/2015 with the registration number NCT02378272. The first patient was enrolled in 11/20/2014.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00304-5.

Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Community-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.  SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).   SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.  PWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).  Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.  For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.  Analysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.  MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies 95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).  Risk of bias Most common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.  Intervention effects *Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.  "Probably", "may", or "uncertain" indicates "moderate", "low," or "very low" certainty evidence.   Adults with common mental disorders (CMDs) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56); b. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96); c. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16); d. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69); e. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15); f. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts); g. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43); b. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01); c. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08); d. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53); e. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03); f. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);  g. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death). Women with perinatal depression (PND) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54); b. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14); c. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04); d. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);  e. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs. Adults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings LHW-led interventions a. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15); b. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15); c. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs. PHP-led interventions a. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);  b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.   Adults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74); b. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and  functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03); c. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);  d. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs. PHP/CP-led interventions a. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10); b. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence); c. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs. PW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence a. may have uncertain effects.  Adults with severe mental disorders *Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1. LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);  b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.  PHP-led or collaborative-care a. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47); b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.  Adults with dementia and carers PHP/LHW-led carer interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08); b. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);  c. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs. Children with PTS or CMDs LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14); b. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);  c. may have little-or-no effect on AEs. CP-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;  b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness

Introduction:

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings.

Methods:

An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (–), mixed results (?) or no change (0).

Results:

34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types.

Conclusions:

This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

Matching depression management to severity prognosis in primary care: results of the Target-D randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Mental health treatment rates are increasing, but the burden of disease has not reduced. Tools to support efficient resource distribution are required.

AIM

To investigate whether a person-centred e-health (Target-D) platform matching depression care to symptom severity prognosis can improve depressive symptoms relative to usual care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Stratified individually randomised controlled trial in 14 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from April 2016 to February 2019. In total, 1868 participants aged 18-65 years who had current depressive symptoms; internet access; no recent change to antidepressant; no current antipsychotic medication; and no current psychological therapy were randomised (1:1) via computer-generated allocation to intervention or usual care.

METHOD

The intervention was an e-health platform accessed in the GP waiting room, comprising symptom feedback, priority-setting, and prognosis-matched management options (online self-help, online guided psychological therapy, or nurse-led collaborative care). Management options were flexible, neither participants nor staff were blinded, and there were no substantive protocol deviations. The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) at 3 months.

RESULTS

In intention to treat analysis, estimated between- arm difference in mean PHQ-9 scores at 3 months was -0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.45 to -0.31) favouring the intervention, and -0.59 at 12 months (95% CI = -1.18 to 0.01); standardised effect sizes of -0.16 (95% CI = -0.26 to -0.05) and -0.10 (95% CI = -0.21 to 0.002), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Matching management to prognosis using a person-centred e-health platform improves depressive symptoms at 3 months compared to usual care and could feasibly be implemented at scale. Scope exists to enhance the uptake of management options.

Economic evaluations of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Common mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent conditions that constitute a major public health and economic burden on society in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the increased demand for economic evidence to support resource allocation for scaled-up implementation of mental health services in these contexts, economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs remain scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The proposed systematic review aims to synthesize findings on methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs and appraise quality.

METHODS

We will identify, select, and extract data from published economic evaluations of psychological interventions for CMDs conducted in LMICs. We will search bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and the African Journals Online (AJOL) and Google Scholar platforms. Only full economic evaluations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), or Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)) of psychological treatments for CMDs (defined as depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders) conducted in LMICs will be included. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication, perspective, follow-up duration or sample size. Data extraction will be guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The results presented will be examined using a narrative synthesis approach. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Drummond & Jefferson checklist.

CONCLUSION

The fledgling evidence base in this area provides an opportunity to promote improved economic evaluation methods in line with repeated calls for economic evidence alongside effectiveness evidence in these settings. A rigorously developed economic evaluation evidence base will support resource allocation decisions for scaled up implementation of psychological interventions in LMIC settings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020185277.

An Economic Analysis of the Implementation of Team-based Collaborative Care in Outpatient General Mental Health Clinics

BACKGROUND

Collaborative Chronic Care Models represent an evidence-based way to structure care for chronic conditions, including mental health conditions. Few studies, however, have examined the cost implications of collaborative care for mental health.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct an economic analysis of implementing collaborative care in 9 outpatient general mental health clinics.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Analyses were derived from a stepped wedge hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. We conducted cost-minimization analyses from the health system perspective, incorporating implementation costs, outpatient costs, and inpatient costs for the year before collaborative care implementation and the implementation year. We used a difference-in-differences approach and conducted 1-way sensitivity analyses to determine the robustness of results to variations ±15% in model parameters, along with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation.

SUBJECTS

Our treatment group included 5507 patients who were initially engaged in care within 9 outpatient general mental health teams that underwent collaborative care implementation. We compared costs for this group to 45,981 control patients who received mental health treatment as usual at the same medical centers.

RESULTS

Collaborative care implementation cost about $40 per patient and was associated with a significant decrease in inpatient costs and a nonsignificant increase in outpatient mental health costs. This implementation was associated with $78 in cost savings per patient. Monte Carlo simulation suggested that implementation was cost saving in 78% of iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care implementation for mental health teams was associated with significant reductions in mental health hospitalizations, leading to substantial cost savings of about $1.70 for every dollar spent for implementation.

Behavioral Health Integration and Outcomes that Matter to Patients: a Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Observational Study

Research on behavioral health integration (BHI) often explores outcomes for quality and cost, but less is known about impacts of integration work on key patient experience outcomes. A mixed-methods longitudinal study of BHI was conducted in 12 primary care clinics in Oregon to assess how adoption of key integration practices including integrated staffing models, integrated care trainings for providers, and integrated data sharing impacted a set of patient experience outcomes selected and prioritized by an advisory panel of active patients. Results showed that adopting key aspects of integration was not associated with improved patient experience outcomes over time. Patient interviews highlighted several potential reasons why, including an overemphasis by health systems on the structural aspects of integration versus the experiential components and potential concerns among patients about stigma and discrimination in the primary care settings where integration is focused.

Study protocol for the COMET study: a cluster-randomised, prospective, parallel-group, superiority trial to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative and stepped care model versus treatment as usual in patients with mental disorders in primary care

INTRODUCTION

Mental healthcare is one of the biggest challenges for healthcare systems. Comorbidities between different mental disorders are common, and patients suffer from a high burden of disease. While the effectiveness of collaborative and stepped care models has been shown for single disorders, comorbid mental disorders have rarely been addressed in such care models. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a collaborative and stepped care model for depressive, anxiety, somatoform and alcohol use disorders within a multiprofessional network compared with treatment as usual.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a cluster-randomised, prospective, parallel-group superiority trial, n=570 patients will be recruited from primary care practices (n=19 practices per group). The intervention is a newly developed collaborative and stepped care model in which patients will be treated using treatment options of various intensities within an integrated network of outpatient general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychotherapists and inpatient institutions. It will be compared with treatment as usual with regard to effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility, with the primary outcome being a change in mental health-related quality of life from baseline to 6 months. Patients in both groups will undergo an assessment at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after study inclusion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the Hamburg Medical Association (No. PV5595) and will be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. For dissemination, the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. Within the superordinate research project Hamburg Network for Health Services Research, the results will be communicated to relevant stakeholders in mental healthcare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03226743.

[Clinical trial of a stepped and collaborative care model for mental illnesses and comorbidities in the Hamburg Network for Health Services Research]

Healthcare for mental disorders is a big challenge for the German healthcare system. In cases of comorbid mental diseases, patients suffer from an especially high burden of disease. So far, innovative care models for collaborative and stepped care have only been investigated with respect to their effectiveness for single mental disorders.The project "Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers" (COMET), which is being carried out by the Hamburg Network for Health Services Research (HAM-NET) from 2017 until 2020, examines an innovative, guideline-based healthcare model for the improvement of healthcare for patients with mental illnesses and their potential comorbidities. In this article this new stepped and collaborative care model for patients in primary care that integrates general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and hospitals is presented. For the implementation and facilitation of the model, guideline-based treatment pathways, a tablet-based computer program for screening, diagnostic and guideline-based treatment recommendations, as well as a web-based transferal platform were developed.The results of this project on the effectiveness and efficacy of the model can help determine if the model can be implemented in routine healthcare. This could represent a major step towards more integrated and cross-sectoral healthcare for patients with mental illnesses.

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a care manager (CM) programme compared with care as usual (CAU) for treatment of depression at primary care centres (PCCs) from a healthcare as well as societal perspective.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

23 PCCs in two Swedish regions.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with depression (n=342).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A cost-effectiveness analysis was applied on a cluster randomised trial at PCC level where patients with depression had 3 months of contact with a CM (11 intervention PCCs, n=163) or CAU (12 control PCCs, n=179), with follow-up 3 and 6 months. Effectiveness measures were based on the number of depression-free days (DFDs) calculated from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: ∆Cost/∆QALY and ∆Cost/∆DFD. Sampling uncertainty was assessed based on non-parametric bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Health benefits were higher in intervention group compared with CAU group: QALYs (0.357 vs 0.333, p<0.001) and DFD reduction of depressive symptom score (79.43 vs 60.14, p<0.001). The mean costs per patient for the 6-month period were €368 (healthcare perspective) and €6217 (societal perspective) for the intervention patients and €246 (healthcare perspective) and €7371 (societal perspective) for the control patients (n.s.). The cost per QALY gained was €6773 (healthcare perspective) and from a societal perspective the CM programme was dominant.

DISCUSSION

The CM programme was associated with a gain in QALYs as well as in DFD, while also being cost saving compared with CAU from a societal perspective. This result is of high relevance for decision-makers on a national level, but it must be observed that a CM programme for depression implies increased costs at the primary care level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02378272; Results.

Collaborative mental health care program versus a general practitioner program and usual care for treatment of patients with mental or neurological disorders in Germany: protocol of a multiperspective evaluation study

BACKGROUND

German statutory health insurances are pursuing the goal of improving treatment of chronically ill people by promoting networks of health care providers and supporting treatments that reflect the current medical knowledge. The so-called PNP program is a collaborative care program developed by a German statutory health insurance, which defines specific rules on psychiatric, neurological, psychosomatic, and psychotherapeutic treatment. It aims to strengthen provision of guideline-based outpatient treatment and collaboration between different health care providers. It includes the general practitioners' program, which aims to strengthen the coordinating role of GPs. This study aims to evaluate the PNP program.

METHODS

To evaluate the effectiveness of the PNP program, we will conduct a prospective non-randomized controlled trial with primary data comparing patients enrolled in the PNP program and in the general practitioner program (intervention group) to patients enrolled only in the general practitioner program and patients who receive usual care (control groups). To evaluate costs and level of detail of diagnoses in care of patients with PNP program, we will use routinely collected secondary administrative health data in a retrospective quasi-experimental design. Patients who are at least 18 years old, insured by the statutory health insurance AOK, and on sick leave due to one of the mental or neurological diagnoses (affective, anxiety, somatoform or adjustment disorders, alcohol use disorders, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis) will be included. We will collect data at baseline and at 12-months follow-up. Health-related quality of life (primary data) and direct costs (secondary data) caused by outpatient and inpatient service utilization and medication will be the primary outcomes. We will analyze data using (generalized) linear mixed models and exploratory analyses. We will use entropy balancing to control for possible differences between the groups. We will use an exploratory sequential design including qualitative and descriptive statistical analyses to assess the structure and process quality of the PNP program among health care providers.

DISCUSSION

The results will help to develop a comprehensive picture of collaborative care programs for mental and neurological health care from the perspective of patients, health care providers, and health insurance companies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00013114.

Comparative Effect of Collaborative Care, Pain Medication, and Duloxetine in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder and Comorbid (Sub)Chronic Pain: Results of an Exploratory Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trial (CC:PAINDIP)

OBJECTIVE

Evidence exists for the efficacy of collaborative care (CC) for major depressive disorder (MDD), for the efficacy of the consequent use of pain medication against pain, and for the efficacy of duloxetine against both MDD and neuropathic pain. Their relative effectiveness in comorbid MDD and pain has never been established so far. This study explores the effectiveness of CC with pain medication and duloxetine, and CC with pain medication and placebo, compared with duloxetine alone, on depressive and pain symptoms. This study was prematurely terminated because of massive reorganizations and reimbursement changes in mental health care in the Netherlands during the study period and is therefore of exploratory nature.

METHODS

Three-armed, randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial at three specialized mental health outpatient clinics with patients who screened positive for MDD. Interventions lasted 12 weeks. Pain medication was administered according to an algorithm that avoids opiate prescription as much as possible, where paracetamol, COX inhibitors, and pregabalin are offered as steps before opiates are considered. Patients who did not show up for three or more sessions were registered as non-compliant. Explorative, intention-to-treat and per protocol, multilevel regression analyses were performed. The trial is listed in the trial registration (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1089; NTR number: NTR1089).

RESULTS

Sixty patients completed the study. Patients in all treatment groups reported significantly less depressive and pain symptoms after 12 weeks. CC with placebo condition showed the fastest decrease in depressive symptoms compared with the duloxetine alone group (b = -0.78; p = 0.01). Non-compliant patients (n = 31) did not improve over the 12-week period, in contrast to compliant patients (n = 29). Pain outcomes did not differ between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

In MDD and pain, patient's compliance and placebo effects are more important in attaining effect than choice of one of the treatments. Active pain management with COX inhibitors and pregabalin as alternatives to tramadol or other opiates might provide an attractive alternative to the current WHO pain ladder as it avoids opiate prescription as much as possible. The generalizability is limited due to the small sample size. Larger studies are needed.

Illness burden and physical outcomes associated with collaborative care in patients with comorbid depressive disorder in chronic medical conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Collaborative care (CC) improves depressive symptoms in people with comorbid depressive disorder in chronic medical conditions, but its effect on physical symptoms has not yet systematically been reviewed. This study aims to do so.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the European and US Clinical Trial Registers. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CC compared to care as usual (CAU), in primary care and general hospital setting, reporting on physical and depressive symptoms as outcomes. Overall treatment effects were estimated for illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were included, with N=4774 patients. The overall effect size of CC versus CAU for illness burden was OR 1.64 (95%CI 1.47;1.83), d=0.27 (95%CI 0.21;0.33). Best physical outcomes in CC were found for hypertension with comorbiddepression. Overall, depression outcomes were better for CC than for CAU. Moderator analyses did not yield statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

CC is more effective than CAU in terms of illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, in patients with comorbid depression in chronic medical conditions. More research covering multiple medical conditions is needed.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 19th 2016: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/DisplayPDF.php?ID=CRD42016035553.

The Role of Health Plans in Supporting Behavioral Health Integration

Health plan policies can influence delivery of integrated behavioral health and general medical care. This study provides national estimates for the prevalence of practices used by health plans that may support behavioral health integration. Results indicate that health plans employ financing and other policies likely to support integration. They also directly provide services that facilitate integration. Behavioral health contracting arrangements are associated with use of these policies. Delivery of integrated care requires systemic changes by both providers and payers thus health plans are key players in achieving this goal.

Cost-utility of collaborative care for the treatment of comorbid major depressive disorder in outpatients with chronic physical conditions. A randomized controlled trial in the general hospital setting (CC-DIM)

PURPOSE

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly prevalent in patients with a chronic physical condition, and this comorbidity has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Research has shown that collaborative care (CC) may be a cost-effective treatment. However, its cost-effectiveness in this patient group has not yet been established. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of CC for the treatment of comorbid MDD in chronically ill patients in the outpatient general hospital setting. The study was conducted from a health care and societal perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 81 patients with moderate-to-severe MDD were included; 42 were randomly assigned to the CC group and 39 to the care as usual (CAU) group. We applied the TiC-P, short-form Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire, and EuroQol EQ-5D 3 level version, measuring the use of health care, informal care, and household work, respectively, at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean annual direct medical costs in the CC group were €6,718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3,541 to 10,680) compared to €4,582 (95% CI: 2,782 to 6,740) in the CAU group. The average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.07 higher in the CC group, indicating that CC is more costly but also more effective than CAU. From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €24,690/QALY.

CONCLUSION

This first cost-utility analysis in chronically ill patients with comorbid MDD shows that CC may be a cost-effective treatment depending on willingness-to-pay levels. Nevertheless, the low utility scores emphasize the need for further research to improve the cost-effectiveness of CC in this highly prevalent and costly group of patients.

Evaluation of the performance of general practitioners in a collaborative care program by employing simulated patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of the general practitioners (GPs) in a collaborative care (CC) program in Iran with a control group of GPs in the usual care by employing simulated patients.

METHODS

Six trained simulated patients (SPs) made unannounced visits to 26 GP offices participating in the CC program and to 26 age and sex matched controls. The SPs role played five clinical scenarios of mental disorders and filled out checklists to evaluate the GPs' performance regarding interviewing, taking history, establishing rapport, showing empathy, and giving advice to patients. Additionally, the GPs' plan of care and prescriptions were evaluated later by a psychiatrist based on the documents provided by the SPs.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between collaborative care and control group physicians in their global performance; CC physicians built up better patient-physician relationship. They performed better in evaluating a psychotic patient, although not better in their management. CC physicians were marginally better in approach to patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and mild major depressive disorder.

CONCLUSION

The overall performance of physicians in CC was better than the GPs in the control group in making an effective patient-physician relationship, and evaluating a psychotic patient. The main weakness of the GPs was in proper treatment of the minor and more common psychiatric disorders and in evaluation of patients with suicidal ideations who were in need for emergent referral. Evaluating performance of the practitioners is feasible employing SPs and the findings can be translated into improvements in the available services.

Social Ecological Determinants of Substance Use Treatment Entry Among Serious Juvenile Offenders From Adolescence Through Emerging Adulthood

PURPOSE

To examine the social-ecological determinants of substance use treatment entry among serious juvenile offenders over a 7 year period. Using the social-ecological framework, relevant predictors of substance use from the literature were used to assess risk (and protective) factors at the individual, parental, peer and neighborhood level.

METHOD

Serious juvenile offenders (N=1354, M_{age baseline}=16.0 years, SD=1.14) were prospectively followed over 7 years (M_{age Conclusion}=23.0 years, SD=1.15). Cox regression with time invariant and time varying predictors was used to predict time to first substance use treatment entry.

RESULTS

Results for each dimension, separately, varied slightly from the full model. In the full model peer delinquency, peer arrests, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), impulse control, temperament, and emotional regulation remained salient risk (and protective) factors for treatment entry.

CONCLUSION

Associating with more deviant peers and having more of your peers arrested over the 7 year study period was associated with substantial increase in time to treatment entry. Furthermore, one of the strongest risk factors for treatment entry was a PTSD diagnosis. Treatment implications are discussed regarding peer affiliation and PTSD symptomology as well as potential neurological and biological contributors to increased risk for treatment entry.

Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating collaborative care for anxiety disorders are recently emerging. A systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of collaborative care for adult patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is therefore warranted.

METHODS

A literature search was performed.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Psycinfo, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of collaborative care for adult primary care patients with an anxiety disorder, compared to care as usual or another intervention. Synthesis methods: Standardized mean differences (SMD) on an anxiety scale closest to twelve months follow-up were calculated and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 3073 studies found, seven studies were included with a total of 2105 participants. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Collaborative care was superior to care as usual, with a small effect size (SMD = 0.35 95 % CI 0.14-0.56) for all anxiety disorders combined and a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.59, 95 % CI 0.41-0.78) in a subgroup analysis (five studies) on patients with panic disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care seems to be a promising strategy for improving primary care for anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder. However, the number of studies is still small and further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness in other anxiety disorders.

Review of behavioral health integration in primary care at Baylor Scott and White Healthcare, Central Region

The integration of behavioral health services in primary care has been referred to in many ways, but ultimately refers to common structures and processes. Behavioral health is integrated into primary care because it increases the effectiveness and efficiency of providing care and reduces costs in the care of primary care patients. Reimbursement is one factor, if not the main factor, that determines the level of integration that can be achieved. The federal health reform agenda supports changes that will eventually permit behavioral health to be fully integrated and will allow the health of the population to be the primary target of intervention. In an effort to develop more integrated services at Baylor Scott and White Healthcare, models of integration are reviewed and the advantages and disadvantages of each model are discussed. Recommendations to increase integration include adopting a disease management model with care management, planned guideline-based stepped care, follow-up, and treatment monitoring. Population-based interventions can be completed at the pace of the development of alternative reimbursement methods. The program should be based upon patient-centered medical home standards, and research is needed throughout the program development process.

Is liaison psychiatry effective in primary care?

‘Collaborative care’ (involving a case manager) and ‘primary care liaison’ or ‘consultation liaison’ (with no case manager) are models of liaison psychiatry in primary care. Here, I briefly consider the evidence for collaborative care, discuss Gillies et al 's Cochrane review on consultation liaison, and suggest avenues for future study and development of liaison psychiatry in primary care.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Collaborative Care Depression and Anxiety Treatment Program in Patients with Acute Cardiac Illness

OBJECTIVE

To use data from a randomized trial to determine the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care (CC) depression and anxiety treatment program and to assess effects of the CC program on health care utilization.

METHODS

The CC intervention's impact on health-related quality of life, depression-free days (DFDs), and anxiety-free days (AFDs) over the 24-week postdischarge period was calculated and compared with the enhanced usual care (EUC) condition using independent samples t tests and random-effects regression models. Costs for both the CC and EUC conditions were calculated on the basis of staff time, overhead expenses, and treatment materials. Using this information, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A cost-effectiveness acceptability plot was created using nonparametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications, and the likelihood of the CC intervention's cost-effectiveness was assessed using standard cutoffs. As a secondary analysis, we determined whether the CC intervention led to reductions in postdischarge health care utilization and costs.

RESULTS

The CC intervention was more costly than the EUC intervention ($209.86 vs. $34.59; z = -11.71; P < 0.001), but was associated with significantly greater increases in quality-adjusted life-years (t = -2.49; P = 0.01) and DFDs (t = -2.13; P = 0.03), but not AFDs (t = -1.92; P = 0.057). This translated into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3337.06 per quality-adjusted life-year saved, $13.36 per DFD, and $13.74 per AFD. Compared with the EUC intervention, the CC intervention was also associated with fewer emergency department visits but no differences in overall costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This CC intervention was associated with clinically relevant improvements, was cost-effective, and was associated with fewer emergency department visits in the 24 weeks after discharge.

[Collaborative and stepped care for depression: Development of a model project within the Hamburg Network for Mental Health (psychenet.de)]

BACKGROUND

Depression is one of the most widespread mental disorders in Germany and causes a great suffering and involves high costs. Guidelines recommend stepped and interdisciplinary collaborative care models for the treatment of depression.

OBJECTIVES

Stepped and collaborative care models are described regarding their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. A current model project within the Hamburg Network for Mental Health exemplifies how guideline-based stepped diagnostics and treatment incorporating innovative low-intensity interventions are implemented by a large network of health care professionals and clinics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An accompanying evaluation using a cluster randomized controlled design assesses depressive symptom reduction and cost-effectiveness for patients treated within "Health Network Depression" ("Gesundheitsnetz Depression", a subproject of psychenet.de) compared with patients treated in routine care.

RESULTS

Over 90 partners from inpatient and outpatient treatment have been successfully involved in recruiting over 600 patients within the stepped care model. Communication in the network was greatly facilitated by the use of an innovative online tool for the supply and reservation of treatment capacities. The participating professionals profit from the improved infrastructure and the implementation of advanced training and quality circle work.

CONCLUSIONS

New treatment models can greatly improve the treatment of depression owing to their explicit reference to guidelines, the establishment of algorithms for diagnostics and treatment, the integration of practices and clinics, in addition to the implementation of low-intensity treatment alternatives. These models could promote the development of a disease management program for depression.

Cost-effectiveness of integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer

OBJECTIVES

Comorbid major depression is associated with reduced quality of life and greater use of healthcare resources. A recent randomised trial (SMaRT, Symptom Management Research Trials, Oncology-2) found that a collaborative care treatment programme (Depression Care for People with Cancer, DCPC) was highly effective in treating depression in patients with cancer. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care from a health service perspective.

METHODS

Costs were estimated using UK national unit cost estimates and health outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care was calculated and scenario analyses performed to test alternative assumptions on costs and missing data. Uncertainty was characterised using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was determined using the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold range of £ 20,000 to £ 30,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

DCPC cost on average £ 631 more than usual care per patient, and resulted in a mean gain of 0.066 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 9549 per QALY. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was 0.9 or greater at cost-effectiveness thresholds above £ 20,000 per QALY for the base case and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with usual care, DCPC is likely to be cost-effective at the current thresholds used by NICE. This study adds to the weight of evidence that collaborative care treatment models are cost-effective for depression, and provides new evidence regarding their use in specialist medical settings.

Cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Major depression is a great burden on society, as it is associated with high disability/costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Collaborative Care (CC) for major depressive disorder compared to Care As Usual (CAU) in a primary health care setting from a societal perspective.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted, including 93 patients that were identified by screening (45-CC, 48-CAU). Another 57 patients were identified by the GP (56-CC, 1-CAU). The outcome measures were TiC-P, SF-HQL and EQ-5D, respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life at baseline three, six, nine and twelve months. A cost-utility analysis was performed for patients included by screening and a sensitivity analysis was done by also including patients identified by the GP.

RESULTS

The average annual total costs was €1131 (95% C.I., €-3158 to €750) lower for CC compared to CAU. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.02 (95% C.I., -0.004 to 0.04) higher for CC, so CC was dominant from a societal perspective. Taking a health care perspective, CC was less cost-effective due to higher costs, €1173 (95% C.I., €-216 to €2726), of CC compared to CAU which led to an ICER of 53,717 Euro/QALY. The sensitivity analysis showed dominance of CC.

CONCLUSION

The cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective showed that CC was dominant to CAU. CC may be a promising treatment for depression in the primary care setting. Further research should explore the cost-effectiveness of long-term CC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register ISRCTN15266438.

A stepped-wedge evaluation of an initiative to spread the collaborative care model for depression in primary care

PURPOSE

Scale-up and spread of evidence-based practices is one of the most important challenges facing health care. We tested whether a statewide initiative, Depression Improvement Across Minnesota-Offering a New Direction (DIAMOND), to implement the collaborative care model for depression in 75 primary care clinics resulted in patient outcome improvements corresponding to those reported in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Health plans provided a new monthly payment to participating clinics after a 6-month intensive training program with ongoing data submission, networking, and consultation. Implementation was staggered, with 5 sequences of 10 to 40 clinics every 6 months. Payers provided weekly contact information for members from participating clinics who were filling antidepressant prescriptions, and we conducted baseline and 6-month surveys of 1,578 patients about their care and outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 466 patients in DIAMOND clinics who received usual care before implementation (UCB), 559 who received usual care in DIAMOND clinics after implementation (UCA), 245 who received DIAMOND care after implementation (DCA), and 308 who received usual care in comparison clinics (UC). Patients who received DIAMOND care after implementation reported more collaborative care depression services than the 3 comparison groups (10.9 vs 6.4-6.7, on a scale of 0 of 14, where higher numbers indicate more services; P <.001) and more satisfaction with their care (4.0 vs 3.4 on a scale 1 to 5, in which higher scores indicate higher satisfaction; P ≤.001). Depression remission rates, however, were not significantly different among the 4 groups (36.4% DCA vs 35.8% UCB, 35.0% UCA, 33.9% UC; P = .94).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the incentive of a supporting payment change and intensive training and support for clinics volunteering to participate, no difference in depression outcomes was documented. Specific unmeasured actions present in trials but not present in these clinics may be critical for successful outcome improvement.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of depressive disorders in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

For the treatment of depressive disorders, the framework of collaborative care has been recommended, which showed improved outcomes in the primary care sector. Yet, an earlier literature review did not find sufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care.

PURPOSE

To systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care, compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in major databases was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. To ensure comparability across studies, cost data were inflated to the year 2012 using country-specific gross domestic product inflation rates, and were adjusted to international dollars using purchasing power parities (PPP).

RESULTS

In total, 19 cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed. The included studies had sample sizes between n = 65 to n = 1,801, and time horizons between six to 24 months. Between 42% and 89% of the CHEC quality criteria were fulfilled, and in only one study no risk of bias was identified. A societal perspective was used by five studies. Incremental costs per depression-free day ranged from dominance to US$PPP 64.89, and incremental costs per QALY from dominance to US$PPP 874,562.

CONCLUSION

Despite our review improved the comparability of study results, cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care is ambiguous depending on willingness to pay. A still considerable uncertainty, due to inconsistent methodological quality and results among included studies, suggests further cost-effectiveness analyses using QALYs as effect measures and a time horizon of at least 1 year.

Collaborative care for depression in European countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of collaborative care compared to Primary Care Physician's (PCP's) usual care in the treatment of depression, focusing on European countries.

METHODS

A systematic review of English and non-English articles, from inception to March 2014, was performed using database PubMed, British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid Medline (R), PsychINFO, Books@Ovid, PsycARTICLES Full Text, EMBASE Classic+Embase, DARE (Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness) and the Cochrane Library electronic database. Search term included depression, collaborative care, physician family and allied health professional. RCTs comparing collaborative care to usual care for depression in primary care were included. Titles and abstracts were independently examined by two reviewers, who extracted from the included trials information on participants' characteristics, type of intervention, features of collaborative care and type of outcome measure.

RESULTS

The 17 papers included, regarding 15 RCTs, involved 3240 participants. Primary analyses showed that collaborative care models were associated with greater improvement in depression outcomes in the short term, within 3 months (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI=-0.33; -0.05; p=0.006), medium term, between 4 and 11 months (SMD -0.24, 95% CI=-0.39; -0.09; p=0.001) and medium-long term, from 12 months and over (SMD -0.21, 95% CI=-0.37; -0.04; p=0.01), compared to usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

The present review, specifically focusing on European countries, shows that collaborative care is more effective than treatment as usual in improving depression outcomes.

Intervention impact on depression product appraisal and purchasing behavior by employers: a randomized trial

Background

Employers can purchase high quality depression products that provide the type, intensity and duration of depression care management shown to improve work outcomes sufficiently for many employers to achieve a return on investment. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to test an intervention to encourage employers to purchase a high quality depression product for their workforce.

Methods

Twenty nine organizations recruited senior health benefit professional members representing public or private employers who had not yet purchased a depression product for all 100+ workers in their company. The research team used randomization blocked by company size to assign eligible employers to: (1) a presentation encouraging employers to purchase a high quality depression product accompanied by a scientifically-derived return on investment estimate, or (2) a presentation encouraging employers to work with their most subscribed health plan to improve depression treatment quality indicators. Two hundred ninety three employers (82.3% of 356) completed baseline data immediately before learning that 140 employers had been randomized to the evidence-based (EB) depression product presentation and 153 had been randomized to the usual care (UC) depression treatment quality indicator presentation. Analysis of 250 (85.3% of 293) employers who completed web-based interviews at 12 and/or 24 months was conducted to determine presentation impact on depression product appraisal and purchasing behavior.

Results

The intervention had no impact on depression product appraisal in 232 subjects (F = 2.36, p = .07) or depression product purchasing (chisquare = 1.82, p = .44) in 250 subjects. Depression product appraisal increased in companies with greater health benefit generosity whose benefit professionals were male. Depression product purchasing behavior increased in small companies compared to large companies, companies who knew a vendor that sold depression products at baseline, companies with greater health benefit risk taking, and companies with less politicalization of health care benefit decision making.

Conclusions

Policy makers need to build innovative bridges to the employer community to convince them to purchase evidence-based benefits, even when benefits offer potential financial savings.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT01013220.

Collaborative treatment of late-life depression in primary care (GermanIMPACT): study protocol of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Depression is not a normal side effect of aging, however it is one of the most prevalent mental health issues in later life, imposing a tremendous burden on patients, their families, and the healthcare system. We describe the experimental implementation of a collaborative, stepped-care model for the treatment of late-life depression (GermanIMPACT trial) in the German primary care context. GermanIMPACT was developed as an adaptation of a successful and widely used American model. The aim of the study is to evaluate the model’s applicability to the German primary care setting and its cost-effectiveness.

Methods/Design

The study will be conducted as a cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing the development of depressive symptoms in primary care patients who either receive treatment as usual (control arm) or treatment according to the GermanIMPACT model (intervention arm). In two German cities (Freiburg and Hamburg), a total of 60 general practice offices will be selected and randomized. Each general practice office will be asked to enroll five patients into the trial who are 60 years of age or older and who show moderate depressive symptoms in the scope of a diagnosed depressive episode, recurrent depressive disorder, or dysthymia. General practices in the control arm will provide treatment as usual; general practices in the intervention arm will work closely with a specially trained care manager and a supervising mental health specialist. Evidence-based elements of the treatment plan manual include patient education, identification and integration of positive activities into the daily routine, relapse prevention, and training of problem-solving techniques as needed. The intervention period per patient will be one year. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcome is the patient-reported change of depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes include measures of quality of life, anxiety, depression-related behavior, problem-solving skills, resilience, and an overall economic evaluation of the program.

Discussion

The GermanIMPACT trial will provide evidence about the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of collaborative stepped care in treating late-life depression in German primary care. Positive results will be a first step toward integrating specialized depression care managers into the primary care setting.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00003589 (September 2012).

Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative care intervention for major depressive disorder in an occupational healthcare setting

PURPOSE

Major depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life.

RESULTS

The average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were €3,874 (95 % CI €2,778-€ 5,718) compared to €4,583 (95 % CI €3,108-€6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY's) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 %) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention.

Stepped collaborative depression care: primary care results before and after implementation of a stepped collaborative depression programme

BACKGROUND

Numerous intensive research projects to assess the effects of stepped collaborative care (SCC) for depressed patients have been reported in primary care, yet it is unclear how SCC is sustained in usual care.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how SCC for depression is actually being used and how it performs in usual primary care by studying medical data that are routinely collected in family practice, outside the research setting.

METHODS

Retrospective before and after comparison of electronic medical records (EMR) regarding the implementation of an SCC depression programme in a large primary care organization from 2003 to 2012. Depression care parameters included prevalences, minimal interventions, Beck Depression Inventory-2 (BDI-2), antidepressants, referrals to psychologists and psychiatrists and primary health care consumption.

RESULTS

After programme implementation, differentiation between levels of depression severity increased, more patients were treated with minimal interventions and more patients were monitored with BDI-2. These effects occurred in both nonseverely and severely depressed patients, although they were larger for patients registered as nonseverely depressed. Antidepressant prescription rates and referral rates seemed not to have been influenced by the SCC programme. Health care consumption of the depressed patients increased significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The depression care parameters changed to a different extent and at a different pace than after previous implementation initiatives. Future research should identify whether SCC uptake in primary care is best enhanced by intensive external guidance or by making care providers themselves responsible for the implementation. Analyses of EMR can be valuable in monitoring the implementation effects, especially after research projects are completed.

One-day cognitive-behavioural therapy self-confidence workshops for people with depression: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite its high prevalence, help-seeking for depression is low.

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 1-day cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) self-confidence workshops in reducing depression. Anxiety, self-esteem, prognostic indicators as well as access were also assessed.

METHOD

An open randomised controlled trial (RCT) waiting list control design with 12-week follow-up was used (trial registration: ISRCTN26634837). A total of 459 adult participants with depression (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores of ≥ 14) self-referred and 382 participants (83%) were followed up.

RESULTS

At follow-up, experimental and control participants differed significantly on the BDI, with an effect size of 0.55. Anxiety and self-esteem also differed. Of those who participated, 25% were GP non-consulters and 32% were from Black and minority ethnic groups. Women benefited more than men on depression scores. The intervention has a 90% chance of being considered cost-effective if a depression-free day is valued at £14.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-confidence workshops appear promising in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and access by difficult-to-engage groups.

The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach.

METHODS

We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies.

LIMITATIONS

We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.

Non-specialist health worker interventions for the care of mental, neurological and substance-abuse disorders in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Many people with mental, neurological and substance-use disorders (MNS) do not receive health care. Non-specialist health workers (NSHWs) and other professionals with health roles (OPHRs) are a key strategy for closing the treatment gap.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of NSHWs and OPHRs delivering MNS interventions in primary and community health care in low- and middle-income countries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register) (searched 21 June 2012); MEDLINE, OvidSP; MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, OvidSP; EMBASE, OvidSP (searched 15 June 2012); CINAHL, EBSCOhost; PsycINFO, OvidSP (searched 18 and 19 June 2012); World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Library (searched 29 June 2012); LILACS; the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO); OpenGrey; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (searched 8 and 9 August 2012); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge) (searched 2 October 2012) and reference lists, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted-time-series studies of NSHWs/OPHR-delivered interventions in primary/community health care in low- and middle-income countries, and intended to improve outcomes in people with MNS disorders and in their carers. We defined an NSHW as any professional health worker (e.g. doctors, nurses and social workers) or lay health worker without specialised training in MNS disorders. OPHRs included people outside the health sector (only teachers in this review).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors double screened, double data-extracted and assessed risk of bias using standard formats. We grouped studies with similar interventions together. Where feasible, we combined data to obtain an overall estimate of effect.

MAIN RESULTS

The 38 included studies were from seven low- and 15 middle-income countries. Twenty-two studies used lay health workers, and most addressed depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The review shows that the use of NSHWs, compared with usual healthcare services: 1. may increase the number of adults who recover from depression or anxiety, or both, two to six months after treatment (prevalence of depression: risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.64; low-quality evidence); 2. may slightly reduce symptoms for mothers with perinatal depression (severity of depressive symptoms: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.26; low-quality evidence); 3. may slightly reduce the symptoms of adults with PTSD (severity of PTSD symptoms: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.05; low-quality evidence); 4. probably slightly improves the symptoms of people with dementia (severity of behavioural symptoms: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.08; moderate-quality evidence); 5. probably improves/slightly improves the mental well-being, burden and distress of carers of people with dementia (carer burden: SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.15; moderate-quality evidence); 6. may decrease the amount of alcohol consumed by people with alcohol-use disorders (drinks/drinking day in last 7 to 30 days: mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -2.79 to -0.57); low-quality evidence).It is uncertain whether lay health workers or teachers reduce PTSD symptoms among children. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of using NSHWs or teachers, or about their impact on people with other MNS conditions. In addition, very few studies measured adverse effects of NSHW-led care - such effects could impact on the appropriateness and quality of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, NSHWs and teachers have some promising benefits in improving people's outcomes for general and perinatal depression, PTSD and alcohol-use disorders, and patient- and carer-outcomes for dementia. However, this evidence is mostly low or very low quality, and for some issues no evidence is available. Therefore, we cannot make conclusions about which specific NSHW-led interventions are more effective.

Cost-effectiveness of depression case management in small practices

BACKGROUND

Case management undertaken by healthcare assistants in small primary care practices is effective in improving depression symptoms and adherence in patients with major depression.

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of depression case management by healthcare assistants in small primary care practices.

METHOD

Cost-effectiveness analysis on the basis of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (2005-2008): practice-based healthcare assistants in 74 practices provided case management to 562 patients with major depression over 1 year. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated as the ratio of differences in mean costs and mean number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Our secondary outcome was the mean depression-free days (DFDs) between the intervention and control group at 24-month follow-up. The study was registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry: ISRCTN66386086.

RESULTS

Intervention v. control group: no significant difference in QALYs; significantly more DFDs (mean: 373 v. 311, P<0.01); no significant difference in mean direct healthcare costs (€4495 v. €3506, P = 0.16); considerably lower mean indirect costs (€5228 v. €7539, P = 0.06), resulting in lower total costs (€9723 v. €11 045, P = 0.41). The point estimate for the cost-utility ratio was €38 429 per QALY gained if only direct costs were considered, and 'dominance' of the intervention if total costs were considered. Yet, regardless of decision makers' willingness to pay per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was never above 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

In small primary care practices, 1 year of case management did not increase the number of QALYs but it did increase the number of DFDs. The intervention was likely to be cost-effective.