Delgadillo Jaime, McMillan Dean, Gilbody Simon, de Jong Kim, Lucock Mike, Lutz Wolfgang, Rubel Julian, Aguirre Elisa, Ali Shehzad
Clinical Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Department of Health Sciences and Hull York Medical School, University of York, United Kingdom.
Behav Res Ther. 2021 Jul;142:103873. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2021.103873. Epub 2021 Apr 24.
Feedback-informed treatment (FIT) involves using computerized routine outcome monitoring technology to alert therapists to cases that are not responding well to psychotherapy, prompting them to identify and resolve obstacles to improvement. In this study, we present the first health economic evaluation of FIT, compared to usual care, to enable decision makers to judge whether this approach represents a good investment for health systems.
This randomised controlled trial included 2233 patients clustered within 77 therapists who were randomly assigned to a FIT group (n = 1176) or a usual care control group (n = 1057). Treatment response was monitored using patient-reported depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) measures. Therapists in the FIT group had access to a computerized algorithm that alerted them to cases that were "not on track", compared to normative clinical data. Health service costs included the cost of training therapists to use FIT and the cost of therapy sessions in each arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness of FIT was assessed relative to usual care, using multilevel modelling.
FIT was associated with an increased probability of reliable symptomatic improvement by 8.09 percentage points (95% CI: 4.16%-12.03%) which was statistically significant. The incremental cost of FIT was £15.17 (95% CI: £6.95 to £37.29) per patient and was not statistically significant. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional case of reliable improvement was £187.4 (95% CI: £126.7 to £501.5); this confidence interval shows that the relative cost-effectiveness is between FIT being a dominant strategy (i.e. more effective and also cost-saving) to FIT being more effective at a modest incremental cost to the health system.
The FIT strategy increases the probability of reliable improvement in routine clinical practice and may be associated with a small (but uncertain) incremental cost. FIT is likely to be a cost-effective strategy for mental health services.
基于反馈的治疗(FIT)涉及使用计算机化的常规结果监测技术,以提醒治疗师注意那些对心理治疗反应不佳的案例,促使他们识别并解决改善过程中的障碍。在本研究中,我们首次对FIT与常规护理进行了卫生经济学评估,以使决策者能够判断这种方法对卫生系统而言是否是一项良好的投资。
这项随机对照试验纳入了2233名患者,这些患者被聚集在77名治疗师中,治疗师被随机分配到FIT组(n = 1176)或常规护理对照组(n = 1057)。使用患者报告的抑郁(PHQ-9)和焦虑(GAD-7)量表监测治疗反应。与规范性临床数据相比,FIT组的治疗师可以使用一种计算机算法,该算法会提醒他们注意那些“进展不顺利”的案例。卫生服务成本包括培训治疗师使用FIT的成本以及每组治疗疗程的成本。使用多水平模型评估FIT相对于常规护理的增量成本效益。
FIT与可靠症状改善概率增加8.09个百分点相关(95%置信区间:4.16% - 12.03%),具有统计学意义。FIT的增量成本为每位患者15.17英镑(95%置信区间:6.95英镑至37.29英镑),无统计学意义。每增加一例可靠改善的增量成本效益比(ICER)为187.4英镑(95%置信区间:126.7英镑至501.5英镑);该置信区间表明,相对成本效益介于FIT是主导策略(即更有效且成本更低)到FIT在对卫生系统有适度增量成本的情况下更有效之间。
FIT策略增加了常规临床实践中可靠改善的概率,并且可能与少量(但不确定)的增量成本相关。FIT可能是心理健康服务的一种具有成本效益的策略。