|
|
|||||||||||
REVIEW ARTICLES |
Department of Health Sciences, University of York
National Primary Care Research & Development Centre, University of Manchester
Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Correspondence: Dr Simon Gilbody, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 6DD, UK. Tel: +44 (0)1904 321370; fax: +44 (0)1904 321388; email: sg519{at}york.ac.uk
Background A number of enhancement strategies have been proposed to improve the quality and outcome of care for depression in primary care settings. Decision-makers are likely to need to know whether these interventions are cost-effective in routine primary care settings.
Method We conducted a systematic review of all full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness and costutility analyses) accompanying randomised controlled trials of enhanced primary care for depression. Costs were standardised to UKpounds/US dollars and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were visually summarised using a permutation matrix.
Results We identified 11 full economic evaluations (4757 patients). A near-uniform finding was that the interventions based upon collaborative care/case management resulted in improved outcomes but were also associated with greater costs. When considering primary care depression treatment costs alone, ICER estimates ranged from £7 ($13, no confidence interval given) to £13 ($24,95% CI 105 to 148) per additional depression-free day. Educational interventions alone were associated with increased cost and no clinical benefit.
Conclusions Improved outcomes through depression management programmes using a collaborative care/case management approach can be expected, but are associated with increased cost and will require investment.
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
I. Anderson, I. Ferrier, R. Baldwin, P. Cowen, L Howard, G Lewis, K Matthews, R. McAllister-Williams, R. Peveler, J Scott, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: A revision of the 2000 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines J Psychopharmacol, June 1, 2008; 22(4): 343 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. E. Domino, B. J. Burns, S. G. Silva, C. J. Kratochvil, B. Vitiello, M. A. Reinecke, J. Mario, and J. S. March Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Adolescent Depression: Results From TADS Am J Psychiatry, May 1, 2008; 165(5): 588 - 596. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. S. Wang, G. E. Simon, J. Avorn, F. Azocar, E. J. Ludman, J. McCulloch, M. Z. Petukhova, and R. C. Kessler Telephone Screening, Outreach, and Care Management for Depressed Workers and Impact on Clinical and Work Productivity Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA, September 26, 2007; 298(12): 1401 - 1411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. A. Joseph Review: enhanced primary care programmes are effective for people with depression but are associated with increased healthcare costs Evid. Based Ment. Health, May 1, 2007; 10(2): 48 - 48. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. S. M Gilbody IMPACT collaborative care programme reduces suicide ideation in depressed older adults Evid. Based Ment. Health, May 1, 2007; 10(2): 51 - 51. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Gilbody, P. Bower, J. Fletcher, D. Richards, and A. J. Sutton Collaborative Care for Depression: A Cumulative Meta-analysis and Review of Longer-term Outcomes Arch Intern Med, November 27, 2006; 166(21): 2314 - 2321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |