Muntz Rachel, Hutchings Judy, Edwards Rhiannon-Tudor, Hounsome Barry, O'Céilleachair Alan
Centre for the Economics of Health, Institute of Medical and Social Care Research, University of Wales, Bangor, UK.
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2004 Dec;7(4):177-89.
Disruptive behaviour disorders, including conduct disorder, affect at least 10% of children and are the most common reasons for referral to children's mental health services. The long-term economic impact on society of unresolved conduct disorder can exceed pound sterling 1 million for one individual over their lifetime.
The aim of this study was to estimate, from a multi-sectoral service perspective, the longer term cost-effectiveness of an intensive practice based parenting programme for children with severe behavioural problems as compared to a standard treatment, on a pilot basis.
A six-month pragmatic controlled trial was conducted involving forty-two families who had been referred to a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) because of severe child behavioural problems. The families were randomly allocated into either the standard or intensive, practice-based treatment arms of the trial. At baseline, children were aged 2 to 10 years. The externalising T-scale of the Child Behaviour Check List (CBCL) was used as the primary outcome measure. Follow-up studies were conducted at 6 months and four years post-intervention. At the four-year follow up point the two treatments were subjected to an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This analysis was enabled by the collection of cost data with respect to the provision of the intensive and standard treatments in terms of therapeutic contact time and also participants' use of health, special educational and social services usage by means of a Client Service Receipt Inventory.
Both groups exhibited improved behaviour at six month follow-up, but only the practice based treatment group showed sustained improvement at the four-year follow-up. An independent t-test revealed a significant difference between group mean scores at four-year follow-up (p = 0.027). The research found a median bootstrap ICER estimate of pound sterling 224 From the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) it was found that 89.6% of the cost-effectiveness plane represented a cost saving over the control intervention while 99.9% represented an improvement in effect. Therefore the intensive intervention could not be said to differ significantly from the control intervention on the basis of costs or effects. However under certain circumstances requiring judgement the intensive intervention could be cost-effective.
Training interventions for the parents of children with severe conduct disorders currently take the form of a number of behavioural strategies provided by a CAMHS team including the reinforcement of appropriate behaviours and parent record-keeping. An alternative treatment was then considered that included all the aspects provided by the standard treatment (with the exception of agreeing written goals) and also added five-hour sessions of unit-based treatment during which videotaped recording of parent-child interactions were used to give feedback to parents and to provide the opportunity for behavioural rehearsal. The findings of the current research indicate that this alternative treatment may be more cost-effective than the standard intervention under certain circumstances.
It can be concluded on a pilot basis that while the CEAC failed to show a significant difference between costs and effects for the intensive treatment, under circumstances of resource/effect trade offs the treatment could be said to be cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION, USE AND POLICIES: Health and social care policy and commissioning must be evidence based. Although the analysis in this paper should be considered a pilot due to the small sample size our results suggest that investment by health services and social services in practice-based parenting interventions may well be less costly and more effective in the longer-run than the standard practice involving giving management advice to parents.
It would be of interest for further research to continue to follow up the work done in this study with a larger cohort of subjects to further establish the effective components of parenting programmes and their relative costs and benefits both at intervention and over time.
破坏性行为障碍,包括品行障碍,影响着至少10%的儿童,是转介至儿童心理健康服务机构的最常见原因。未解决的品行障碍对社会的长期经济影响,对于一个个体而言,其一生可能超过100万英镑。
本研究的目的是从多部门服务的角度,初步评估一项针对有严重行为问题儿童的强化实践型育儿计划相较于标准治疗的长期成本效益。
进行了一项为期六个月的实用对照试验,涉及42个因儿童严重行为问题而被转介至儿童与青少年心理健康服务机构(CAMHS)的家庭。这些家庭被随机分配到试验的标准治疗组或强化实践型治疗组。基线时,儿童年龄在2至10岁之间。使用儿童行为检查表(CBCL)的外化T量表作为主要结局指标。在干预后6个月和4年进行随访研究。在4年随访点,对两种治疗进行增量成本效益分析。通过收集关于强化治疗和标准治疗在治疗接触时间方面的成本数据,以及通过客户服务收据清单收集参与者使用医疗、特殊教育和社会服务的情况,得以进行此项分析。
两组在6个月随访时行为均有改善,但只有实践型治疗组在4年随访时显示出持续改善。独立t检验显示4年随访时两组平均得分存在显著差异(p = 0.027)。研究发现自举法估计的成本效益比中位数为224英镑。从成本效益可接受性曲线(CEAC)发现,成本效益平面的89.6%表示相较于对照干预节省成本,而99.9%表示效果有所改善。因此,基于成本或效果而言,强化干预与对照干预并无显著差异。然而,在某些需要判断的情况下,强化干预可能具有成本效益。
目前针对有严重品行障碍儿童的父母的培训干预采取CAMHS团队提供的多种行为策略的形式,包括强化适当行为和父母记录。随后考虑了一种替代治疗方法,该方法包括标准治疗提供的所有方面(除了商定书面目标),还增加了为期5小时的基于单元的治疗课程,在此期间使用亲子互动的录像记录向父母提供反馈,并提供行为演练的机会。当前研究结果表明,在某些情况下,这种替代治疗可能比标准干预更具成本效益。
初步得出结论,虽然CEAC未能显示强化治疗在成本和效果之间存在显著差异,但在资源/效果权衡的情况下,可以认为该治疗具有成本效益。对医疗保健提供、使用和政策的影响:健康和社会护理政策及委托必须以证据为基础。尽管由于样本量小,本文中的分析应被视为初步研究,但我们的结果表明,从长远来看,卫生服务和社会服务对基于实践的育儿干预的投资可能比向父母提供管理建议的标准做法成本更低且更有效。
进一步的研究继续对更大规模的研究对象群体进行本研究中的工作随访,以进一步确定育儿计划的有效组成部分及其在干预时和随时间推移的相对成本和效益,这将是很有意义的。