Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon (Lynch, Dickerson, Clarke, DeBar); Judge Baker Children's Center, Harvard University, Boston (Beardslee); San Diego State University (SDSU)-University of California, San Diego, Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, SDSU, San Diego (Weersing); Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts (Gladstone); Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (Porta); Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh (Brent); Behavioral Health Financing, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Mark); Department of Psychology (Hollon) and Department of Psychiatry (Garber), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Psychiatr Serv. 2019 Apr 1;70(4):279-286. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201800144. Epub 2019 Jan 3.
Youth depression can be prevented, yet few programs are offered. Decision makers lack cost information. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral prevention program (CBP) versus usual care.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with data from a randomized controlled trial of 316 youths, ages 13-17, randomly assigned to CBP or usual care. Youths were at risk of depression because of a prior depressive disorder or subthreshold depressive symptoms, or both, and had parents with a prior or current depressive disorder. Outcomes included depression-free days (DFDs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs.
Nine months after baseline assessment, youths in CBP experienced 12 more DFDs (p=.020) and .018 more QALYs (p=.007), compared with youths in usual care, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,558 per QALY. For youths whose parents were not depressed at baseline, CBP youths had 26 more DFDs (p=.001), compared with those in usual care (ICER=$10,498 per QALY). At 33 months postbaseline, youths in CBP had 40 more DFDs (p=.05) (ICER=$12,787 per QALY). At 33 months, CBP youths whose parents were not depressed at baseline had 91 more DFDs (p=.001) (ICER=$13,620 per QALY). For youths with a currently depressed parent at baseline, CBP was not significantly more effective than usual care at either 9 or 33 months, and costs were higher.
CBP produced significantly better outcomes than usual care and was particularly cost-effective for youths whose parents were not depressed at baseline. Depression prevention programs could improve youths' health at a reasonable cost; services to treat depressed parents may also be warranted.
青少年抑郁可以预防,但提供的项目很少。决策者缺乏成本信息。本研究评估了认知行为预防计划(CBP)与常规护理相比的成本效益。
对 316 名年龄在 13-17 岁之间的青少年进行了一项随机对照试验的数据进行了成本效益分析,这些青少年有抑郁障碍或亚临床抑郁症状史,或两者兼有,其父母有抑郁障碍或当前抑郁障碍史。结果包括无抑郁天数(DFD)、质量调整生命年(QALY)和成本。
与常规护理相比,CBP 组青少年在基线评估后 9 个月时多经历了 12 个 DFD(p=.020)和 0.018 个 QALY(p=.007),增量成本效益比(ICER)为每 QALY 24558 美元。对于基线时父母未抑郁的青少年,CBP 组青少年的 DFD 多了 26 个(p=.001),而常规护理组则多了 26 个(ICER=每 QALY 10498 美元)。在基线后 33 个月,CBP 组青少年的 DFD 多了 40 个(p=.05)(ICER=每 QALY 12787 美元)。在 33 个月时,基线时父母未抑郁的 CBP 组青少年的 DFD 多了 91 个(p=.001)(ICER=每 QALY 13620 美元)。对于基线时父母抑郁的青少年,CBP 在 9 个月或 33 个月时都没有比常规护理更有效,而且成本更高。
CBP 的效果明显优于常规护理,对于基线时父母未抑郁的青少年尤其具有成本效益。预防青少年抑郁的计划可以以合理的成本提高青少年的健康水平;为治疗抑郁父母提供服务可能也是合理的。