Centre for the Economics of Mental Health, PO 24, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK.
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 May;196(5):377-82. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.065896.
There is concern that delaying treatment for psychosis may have a negative impact on its long-term course. A number of countries have developed early intervention teams but there is limited evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness.
To compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of an early intervention service in London with standard care.
Individuals in their first episode of psychosis (or those who had previously discontinued treatment) were recruited to the study. Clinical variables and costs were measured at baseline and then at 6- and 18-month follow-up. Information on quality of life and vocational outcomes were combined with costs to assess cost-effectiveness.
A total of 144 people were randomised. Total mean costs were 11,685 pounds sterling in the early intervention group and 14,062 pounds sterling in the standard care group, with the difference not being significant (95% CI -8128 pounds sterling to 3326 pounds sterling). When costs were combined with improved vocational and quality of life outcomes it was shown that early intervention would have a very high likelihood of being cost-effective.
Early intervention did not increase costs and was highly likely to be cost-effective when compared with standard care.
有人担心，延迟治疗精神病可能会对其长期病程产生负面影响。许多国家都已经组建了早期干预团队，但关于其成本效益的证据有限。
比较伦敦的早期干预服务与标准护理的成本和成本效益。
招募首次出现精神病（或以前已停止治疗）的个体参加该研究。在基线时以及 6 个月和 18 个月的随访时测量临床变量和成本。将生活质量和职业结果信息与成本相结合，以评估成本效益。
共有 144 人被随机分配。早期干预组的总平均费用为 11685 英镑，标准护理组的总平均费用为 14062 英镑，差异不显著（95%置信区间为-8128 英镑至 3326 英镑）。当将成本与改善的职业和生活质量结果结合起来时，表明早期干预非常有可能具有成本效益。
与标准护理相比，早期干预并未增加成本，并且极有可能具有成本效益。
