Flood Chris, Byford Sarah, Henderson Claire, Leese Morven, Thornicroft Graham, Sutherby Kim, Szmukler George
Department of Mental Health and Learning Disability, City University, London E1 2EA.
BMJ. 2006 Oct 7;333(7571):729. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38929.653704.55. Epub 2006 Aug 16.
To investigate the cost effectiveness of joint crisis plans, a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness.
Single blind randomised controlled trial.
Eight community mental health teams in southern England.
160 people with a diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had been admitted to hospital at least once within the previous two years.
Joint crisis plan formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker containing contact information, details of illnesses, treatments, relapse indicators, and advance statements of preferences for care for future relapses. Control group was standardised service information.
Admission to hospital; service use over 15 months.
Use of a joint crisis plan was associated with less service use and lower costs on average than in the standardised service information group, but differences were not significant. Total costs during follow-up were 7264 pounds sterling (10,616 euros, 13,560 dollars) for each participant with a joint crisis plan and 8359 pounds sterling (12,217 euros, 15,609 dollars) for each participant with standardised service information (mean difference 1095 pounds sterling; 95% confidence interval -2814 to 5004). Cost effectiveness acceptability curves, used to explore uncertainty in estimates of costs and effects, suggest there is a greater than 78% probability that joint crisis plans are more cost effective than standardised service information in reducing the proportion of patients admitted to hospital.
Joint crisis plans produced a non-significant decrease in admissions and total costs. Though the cost estimates had wide confidence intervals, the associated uncertainty suggests there is a relatively high probability of the plans being more cost effective than standardised service information for people with psychotic disorders.
探讨联合危机计划(一种针对严重精神疾病患者的预先协议形式)的成本效益。
单盲随机对照试验。
英格兰南部的八个社区精神卫生团队。
160名被诊断患有精神病性疾病或非精神病性双相情感障碍的患者,他们在过去两年内至少入院一次。
由患者、护理协调员、精神科医生和项目工作人员共同制定联合危机计划,其中包含联系信息、疾病详情、治疗方法、复发指标以及关于未来复发时护理偏好的预先声明。对照组为标准化服务信息。
入院情况;15个月内的服务使用情况。
与标准化服务信息组相比,使用联合危机计划平均服务使用量更少,成本更低,但差异不显著。随访期间,每个拥有联合危机计划的参与者的总成本为7264英镑(10616欧元,13560美元),每个拥有标准化服务信息的参与者的总成本为8359英镑(12217欧元,15609美元)(平均差异1095英镑;95%置信区间为-2814至5004)。用于探索成本和效果估计不确定性的成本效益可接受性曲线表明,联合危机计划在降低患者入院比例方面比标准化服务信息更具成本效益的概率大于78%。
联合危机计划使入院人数和总成本有不显著的下降。尽管成本估计的置信区间较宽,但相关的不确定性表明,对于患有精神障碍的人来说,这些计划比标准化服务信息更具成本效益的概率相对较高。