Suppr超能文献

基层医疗中抑郁症干预措施的成本效益

Cost-effectiveness of a primary care depression intervention.

作者信息

Pyne Jeffrey M, Rost Kathryn M, Zhang Mingliang, Williams D Keith, Smith Jeffrey, Fortney John

机构信息

HSRD Center for Mental Healthcare and Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, Arkansas 72114-1706, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Jun;18(6):432-41. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20611.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement depression intervention (enhanced care) in primary care settings relative to usual care.

DESIGN

Following stratification, we randomized 12 primary care practices to enhanced or usual care conditions and followed patients for 12 months.

SETTING

Primary care practices located in 10 states across the United States.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eleven patients beginning a new treatment episode for major depression.

INTERVENTIONS

Training the primary care team to assess, educate, and monitor depressed patients during the acute and continuation stages of their depression treatment episode over 1 year.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness was measured by calculating incremental (enhanced minus usual care) costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from SF-36 data. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the main analysis was US dollars 15463 per QALY. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the sensitivity analyses ranged from US dollars 11341 (using geographic block variables to control for pre-intervention service utilization) to US dollars 19976 (increasing the cost estimates by 50%) per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

This quality improvement depression intervention was cost-effective relative to usual care compared to cost-effectiveness ratios for common primary care interventions and commonly cited cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds for intervention implementation.

摘要

目的

确定在初级保健机构中,质量改进型抑郁症干预措施(强化护理)相对于常规护理的增量成本效益。

设计

分层后,我们将12家初级保健机构随机分为强化护理组或常规护理组,并对患者进行了12个月的随访。

地点

位于美国10个州的初级保健机构。

患者/参与者:211名开始新的重度抑郁症治疗疗程的患者。

干预措施

对初级保健团队进行培训,以便在抑郁症治疗疗程的急性期和延续期对抑郁症患者进行为期1年的评估、教育和监测。

测量与主要结果

通过计算增量(强化护理减去常规护理)成本和从SF-36数据得出的质量调整生命年(QALY)来衡量成本效益。主要分析中的平均增量成本效益比为每QALY 15463美元。敏感性分析中的平均增量成本效益比范围为每QALY 11341美元(使用地理区域变量控制干预前的服务利用情况)至19976美元(将成本估计值提高50%)。

结论

与常见初级保健干预措施的成本效益比以及干预实施中常用的成本效益比阈值相比,这种质量改进型抑郁症干预措施相对于常规护理具有成本效益。

相似文献

1
Cost-effectiveness of a primary care depression intervention.
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Jun;18(6):432-41. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20611.x.
5
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rural telemedicine collaborative care intervention for depression.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;67(8):812-21. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.82.
7
The costs and benefits of enhanced depression care to employers.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;63(12):1345-53. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.12.1345.
8
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Collaborative Care for Diabetes and Depression in Primary Care.
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Jul;51(1):e13-20. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.01.010.
9
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a collaborative care programme for depression in primary care.
J Affect Disord. 2014 Apr;159:85-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.01.021. Epub 2014 Feb 13.

引用本文的文献

2
Resource allocation for depression management in general practice: A simple data-based filter model.
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 19;16(2):e0246728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246728. eCollection 2021.
4
Integrated Care: A Disruptive Innovation for Extending Psychiatric Expertise to Primary Care Practices.
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 May 2;2(2):99-102. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2018.03.004. eCollection 2018 Jun.
5
A Comparison of Collaborative Care Outcomes in Two Health Care Systems: VA Clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers.
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Apr 1;69(4):431-437. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700067. Epub 2018 Jan 16.
6
Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in HIV Clinics.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 Dec 1;70(4):377-85. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000732.
7
Cost-effectiveness of on-site versus off-site collaborative care for depression in rural FQHCs.
Psychiatr Serv. 2015 May 1;66(5):491-9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400186. Epub 2015 Feb 17.
9
[Cost effectiveness of a health insurance based case management programme for patients with affective disorders].
Neuropsychiatr. 2014;28(3):130-41. doi: 10.1007/s40211-014-0109-7. Epub 2014 Jun 11.
10
The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Dec;31(12):1131-54. doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0107-9.

本文引用的文献

2
Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for primary care patients with persistent depression.
Am J Psychiatry. 2001 Oct;158(10):1638-44. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.10.1638.
5
Cost-effectiveness of systematic depression treatment for high utilizers of general medical care.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001 Feb;58(2):181-7. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.58.2.181.
6
Self-reports of health care utilization compared to provider records.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Feb;54(2):136-41. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00261-4.
7
The quality of care for depressive and anxiety disorders in the United States.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001 Jan;58(1):55-61. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.58.1.55.
10
Randomized trial of a depression management program in high utilizers of medical care.
Arch Fam Med. 2000 Apr;9(4):345-51. doi: 10.1001/archfami.9.4.345.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验