Pyne Jeffrey M, Fortney John C, Tripathi Shanti Prakash, Maciejewski Matthew L, Edlund Mark J, Williams D Keith
Center for Mental Healthcare and Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, North Little Rock, AR 72114, USA.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;67(8):812-21. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.82.
Collaborative care interventions for depression in primary care settings are clinically beneficial and cost-effective. Most prior studies were conducted in urban settings.
To examine the cost-effectiveness of a rural telemedicine-based collaborative care depression intervention.
Randomized controlled trial of intervention vs usual care.
Seven small (serving 1000 to 5000 veterans) Veterans Health Administration community-based outpatient clinics serving rural catchment areas in 3 mid-South states. Each site had interactive televideo dedicated to mental health but no psychiatrist or psychologist on site. Patients Among 18 306 primary care patients who were screened, 1260 (6.9%) screened positive for depression; 395 met eligibility criteria and were enrolled from April 2003 to September 2004. Of those enrolled, 360 (91.1%) completed a 6-month follow-up and 335 (84.8%) completed a 12-month follow-up. Intervention A stepped-care model for depression treatment was used by an off-site depression care team to make treatment recommendations via electronic medical record. The team included a nurse depression care manager, clinical pharmacist, and psychiatrist. The depression care manager communicated with patients via telephone and was supported by computerized decision support software.
The base case cost analysis included outpatient, pharmacy, and intervention expenditures. The effectiveness outcomes were depression-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey standard gamble conversion formula.
The incremental depression-free days outcome was not significant (P = .10); therefore, further cost-effectiveness analyses were not done. The incremental QALY outcome was significant (P = .04) and the mean base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $85 634/QALY. Results adding inpatient costs were $111 999/QALY to $132 175/QALY.
In rural settings, a telemedicine-based collaborative care intervention for depression is effective and expensive. The mean base case result was $85 634/QALY, which is greater than cost per QALY ratios reported for other, mostly urban, depression collaborative care interventions.
基层医疗环境中针对抑郁症的协作护理干预具有临床益处且具有成本效益。大多数先前的研究是在城市环境中进行的。
研究基于农村远程医疗的协作护理抑郁症干预措施的成本效益。
干预与常规护理的随机对照试验。
位于美国南部3个州农村集水区的7家小型(服务1000至5000名退伍军人)退伍军人健康管理局社区门诊诊所。每个站点都有专门用于心理健康的交互式远程视频,但现场没有精神科医生或心理学家。患者 在18306名接受筛查的基层医疗患者中,1260名(6.9%)抑郁症筛查呈阳性;395名符合资格标准,并于2003年4月至2004年9月入组。在入组者中,360名(91.1%)完成了6个月的随访,335名(84.8%)完成了12个月的随访。干预 一个场外抑郁症护理团队采用了一种逐步护理的抑郁症治疗模式,通过电子病历提出治疗建议。该团队包括一名护士抑郁症护理经理、临床药剂师和精神科医生。抑郁症护理经理通过电话与患者沟通,并得到计算机化决策支持软件的支持。
基础病例成本分析包括门诊、药房和干预支出。有效性结局指标是使用12项简短健康调查问卷标准赌博转换公式计算的无抑郁天数和质量调整生命年(QALY)。
无抑郁天数的增量结局不显著(P = 0.10);因此,未进行进一步的成本效益分析。QALY的增量结局显著(P = 0.04),基础病例平均增量成本效益比为85634美元/QALY。加上住院成本后的结果为111999美元/QALY至132175美元/QALY。
在农村地区,基于远程医疗的抑郁症协作护理干预有效但成本高昂。基础病例的平均结果为85634美元/QALY,高于其他(大多是城市地区)抑郁症协作护理干预所报告的每QALY成本比率。