Search

Studies of interventions for dyslexia have focused entirely on outcomes related to literacy. In this study, we considered a broader picture assessing improved quality of life compared with costs. A model served as a tool to compare costs and effects of treatment according to a new protocol and care as usual. Quality of life was measured and valued by proxies using a general quality-of-life instrument (EQ-5D). We considered medical cost and non-medical cost (e.g. remedial teaching). The model computed cost per successful treatment and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) in time. About 75% of the total costs was related to diagnostic tests to distinguish between children with severe dyslexia and children who have reading difficulties for other reasons. The costs per successful treatment of severe dyslexia were 36366 euros. Successful treatment showed a quality-of-life gain of about 11%. At primary school, the average cost per QALY for severe dyslexia amounted to 58,647 euros. In the long term, the cost per QALY decreased to 26,386 euros at secondary school and 17,663 euros thereafter. The results of this study provide evidence that treatment of severe dyslexia is cost-effective when the investigated protocol is followed. (Contains 1 figure and 2 tables.)

Short-term inpatient psychotherapy based on transactional analysis (STIP-TA) in patients with personality disorders (PD) has shown to be more effective than comparable other specialized psychotherapies (OP). The aim of this study was to assess whether the higher effectiveness of STIP-TA also results in a better cost-effectiveness. Patients treated with STIP-TA were matched with patients treated with OP by the propensity score. Healthcare costs and lost productivity costs were measured over 3 years and from the societal perspective. Cost-effectiveness was represented by costs per quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping. Mean 3-year costs were €59,834 for STIP-TA and €69,337 for OP, a difference of −€9,503, 95% CI [−32,561, 15,726]. QALYs were 2.29 for STIP-TA and 2.05 for OP, a difference of .24, 95% CI [.05, .44]. STIP-TA is a dominant treatment compared to OP: less costly and more effective. We conclude that STIP-TA is a cost-effective treatment in PD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incidence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents has been increasing. The disorder results in high societal costs. Policymakers increasingly use health economic evaluations to inform decisions on competing treatments of ADHD. Yet, health economic evaluations of first-choice medication of ADHD in children and adolescents are scarce and generally do not include broader societal effects. Objectives: This study presents a probabilistic model and analysis of methylphenidate osmotic-release oral system (OROS) versus methylphenidate immediate-release (IR). We investigate and include relevant societal aspects in the analysis so as to provide cost-effectiveness estimates based on a broad societal perspective. Methods: We enhanced an existing Markov model and determined the cost effectiveness of OROS versus IR for children and adolescents responding suboptimally to treatment with IR. Enhancements included screening of a broad literature base, updated utility values, inclusion of costs and effects on caregivers and a change of the model type from deterministic to probabilistic. Results: The base case scenario resulted in lower incremental costs (€−5815) of OROS compared with IR and higher incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains (0.22). Scenario analyses were performed to determine sensitivity to changes in transition rates, utility of caregivers, medical costs of caregivers and daily medication dose. Conclusions: The results indicate that, for children responding suboptimally to treatment with IR, the beneficial effect of OROS on compliance may be worth the additional costs of medication. The presented model adds to the health economic information available for policymakers and to considerations on a broader perspective in cost-effectiveness analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of interventions for dyslexia have focused entirely on outcomes related to literacy. In this study, we considered a broader picture assessing improved quality of life compared with costs. A model served as a tool to compare costs and effects of treatment according to a new protocol and care as usual. Quality of life was measured and valued by proxies using a general quality-of-life instrument (EQ-5D). We considered medical cost and non-medical cost (e.g. remedial teaching). The model computed cost per successful treatment and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) in time. About 75% of the total costs was related to diagnostic tests to distinguish between children with severe dyslexia and children who have reading difficulties for other reasons. The costs per successful treatment of severe dyslexia were €36 366. Successful treatment showed a quality-of-life gain of about 11%. At primary school, the average cost per QALY for severe dyslexia amounted to €58 647. In the long term, the cost per QALY decreased to €26 386 at secondary school and €17 663 thereafter. The results of this study provide evidence that treatment of severe dyslexia is cost-effective when the investigated protocol is followed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) has major consequences for both patients and society, particularly in terms of needlessly long sick leave and reduced functioning. Although evidence-based treatments for MDD are available, they show disappointing results when implemented in daily practice. A focus on work is also lacking in the treatment of depressive disorder as well as communication of general practitioners (GPs) and other health care professionals with occupational physicians (OPs). The OP may play a more important role in the recovery of patients with MDD. Purpose of the present study is to tackle these obstacles by applying a collaborative care model, which has proven to be effective in the USA, with a focus on return to work (RTW). From a societal perspective, the (cost)effectiveness of this collaborative care treatment, as a way of transmural care, will be evaluated in depressed patients on sick leave in the occupational health setting. Methods/Design: A randomised controlled trial in which the treatment of MDD in the occupational health setting will be evaluated in the Netherlands. A transmural collaborative care model, including Problem Solving Treatment (PST), a workplace intervention, antidepressant medication and manual guided self-help will be compared with care as usual (CAU). 126 Patients with MDD on sick leave between 4 and 12 weeks will be included in the study. Care in the intervention group will be provided by a multidisciplinary team of a trained OP-care manager and a consultant psychiatrist. The treatment is separated from the sickness certification. Data will be collected by means of questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after baseline. Primary outcome measure is reduction of depressive symptoms, secondary outcome measure is time to RTW, tertiary outcome measure is the cost effectiveness. Discussion: The high burden of MDD and the high level of sickness absence among people with MDD contribute to the relevance of this study. The intervention is an innovative approach, with trained OPs in a new role as care managers in the treatment of MDD. If this intervention proves to be cost-effective, implementation will be very relevant for individual patients as well as for society. Trial registration: ISRCTN78462860 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: eHealth potentially enhances quality of care and may reduce health care costs. However, a review of systematic reviews published in 2010 concluded that high-quality evidence on the benefits of eHealth interventions was still lacking.Objective: We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effectiveness/cost-effectiveness of eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases to analyze whether, and to what possible extent, the outcome of recent research supports or differs from previous conclusions.Methods: Literature searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions published between August 2009 and December 2012. Articles were screened for relevance based on preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Citations of residual articles were screened for additional literature. Included papers were critically appraised using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement before data were extracted. Based on conclusions drawn by the authors of the included articles, reviews and meta-analyses were divided into 1 of 3 groups: suitable, promising, or limited evidence on effectiveness/cost-effectiveness. Cases of uncertainty were resolved by consensus discussion. Effect sizes were extracted from papers that included a meta-analysis. To compare our results with previous findings, a trend analysis was performed.Results: Our literature searches yielded 31 eligible reviews, of which 20 (65%) reported on costs. Seven papers (23%) concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective, 13 (42%) underlined that evidence is promising, and others found limited or inconsistent proof. Methodological quality of the included reviews and meta-analyses was generally considered high. Trend analysis showed a considerable accumulation of literature on eHealth. However, a similar percentage of papers concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective or evidence is at least promising (65% vs 62%). Reviews focusing primarily on children or family caregivers still remained scarce. Although a pooled (subgroup) analysis of aggregate data from randomized studies was performed in a higher percentage of more recently published reviews (45% vs 27%), data on economic outcome measures were less frequently reported (65% vs 85%).Conclusions: The number of reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases has increased considerably in recent years. Most articles show eHealth is effective/cost-effective or at least suggest evidence is promising, which is consistent with previous findings. Although many researchers advocate larger, well-designed, controlled studies, we believe attention should be given to the development and evaluation of strategies to implement effective/cost-effective eHealth initiatives in daily practice, rather than to further strengthen current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Generalized anxiety and panic disorders are a burden on the society because they are costly and have a significant adverse effect on quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of a collaborative stepped care intervention for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder in primary care compared to care as usual from a societal perspective. Methods: The design of the study was a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands participated in the study. Eventually, 180 patients were included (114 collaborative stepped care, 66 care as usual). Baseline measures and follow-up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12months) were assessed using questionnaires. We applied the TiC-P, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and health related quality of life. Results: The average annual direct medical costs in the collaborative stepped care group were 1854 Euro (95% C.I., 1726 to 1986) compared to €1503 (95% C.I., 1374 to 1664) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.05 higher in the collaborative stepped care group, leading to an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 6965 Euro per QALY. Inclusion of the productivity costs, consequently reflecting the full societal costs, decreased the ratio even more. Conclusion: The study showed that collaborative stepped care was a cost effective intervention for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder and was even dominant when a societal perspective was taken. Trial registration: trialregister.nl, Netherlands Trial Register NTR107. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]