Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)

Background

Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking.

Aims

To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.

Methods

An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane.

Results

The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: –0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: –202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual.

Conclusion

Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.     

Collaborative Interventions for Circulation and Depression (COINCIDE): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Depression is up to two to three times as common in people with long-term conditions. It negatively affects medical management of disease and self-care behaviors, and leads to poorer quality of life and high costs in primary care. Screening and treatment of depression is increasingly prioritized, but despite initiatives to improve access and quality of care, depression remains under-detected and under-treated, especially in people with long-term conditions. Collaborative care is known to positively affect the process and outcome of care for people with depression and long-term conditions, but its effectiveness outside the USA is still relatively unknown. Furthermore, collaborative care has yet to be tested in settings that resemble more naturalistic settings that include patient choice and the usual care providers. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a collaborative-care intervention, for people with depression and diabetes/coronary heart disease in National Health Service (NHS) primary care, in which low-intensity psychological treatment services are delivered by the usual care provider - Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services.s. The study also aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over 6 months of collaborative care, and to assess qualitatively the extent to which collaborative care was implemented in the intervention general practices. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized controlled trial of 30 general practices allocated to either collaborative care or usual care. Fifteen patients per practice will be recruited after a screening exercise to detect patients with recognized depression (greater than or equal to 10 on the nine-symptom Patient Health Questionnaire; PHQ-9). Patients in the collaborative-care arm with recognized depression will be offered a choice of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments based on cognitive and behavioral approaches. Patients will be case managed by psychological well-being practitioners employed by IAPT in partnership with a practice nurse and/or general practitioner. The primary outcome will be change in depressive symptoms at 6 months on the 90-item Symptoms Checklist (SCL-90). Secondary outcomes include change in health status, self-care behaviors, and self-efficacy. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken with patients and health practitioners to gauge the extent to which the collaborative-care model is implemented, and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: COINCIDE will assess whether collaborative care can improve patient-centered outcomes, and evaluate access to and quality of care of co-morbid depression of varying intensity in people with diabetes/coronary heart disease. Additionally, by working with usual care providers such as IAPT, and by identifying and evaluating interventions that are effective and appropriate for routine use in the NHS, the COINCIDE trial offers opportunities to address translational gaps between research and implementation.Trial Registration NumberISRCTN80309252Trial StatusOpen.     

The Outcome of Health Anxiety in Primary Care. A Two-Year Follow-up Study on Health Care Costs and Self-Rated Health

Background

Hypochondriasis is prevalent in primary care, but the diagnosis is hampered by its stigmatizing label and lack of valid diagnostic criteria. Recently, new empirically established criteria for Health anxiety were introduced. Little is known about Health anxiety''s impact on longitudinal outcome, and this study aimed to examine impact on self-rated health and health care costs.

Methodology/Principal Findings

1785 consecutive primary care patients aged 18–65 consulting their family physicians (FPs) for a new illness were followed-up for two years. A stratified subsample of 701 patients was assessed by the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry interview. Patients with mild (N = 21) and severe Health anxiety (N = 81) and Hypochondriasis according to the DSM-IV (N = 59) were compared with a comparison group of patients who had a well-defined medical condition according to their FPs and a low score on the screening questionnaire (N = 968). Self-rated health was measured by questionnaire at index and at three, 12, and 24 months, and health care use was extracted from patient registers. Compared with the 968 patients with well-defined medical conditions, the 81 severe Health anxiety patients and the 59 DSM-IV Hypochondriasis patients continued during follow-up to manifest significantly more Health anxiety (Whiteley-7 scale). They also continued to have significantly worse self-rated functioning related to physical and mental health (component scores of the SF-36). The severe Health anxiety patients used about 41–78% more health care per year in total, both during the 3 years preceding inclusion and during follow-up, whereas the DSM-IV Hypochondriasis patients did not have statistically significantly higher total use. A poor outcome of Health anxiety was not explained by comorbid depression, anxiety disorder or well-defined medical condition. Patients with mild Health anxiety did not have a worse outcome on physical health and incurred significantly less health care costs than the group of patients with a well-defined medical condition.

Conclusions/Significance

Severe Health anxiety was found to be a disturbing and persistent condition. It is costly for the health care system and must be taken seriously, i.e. diagnosed and treated. This study supports the validity of recently introduced new criteria for Health anxiety.     

Collaborative Care for Depression in Primary Care: How Psychiatry Could “Troubleshoot” Current Treatments and Practices

The bulk of mental health services for people with depression are provided in primary care settings. Primary care providers prescribe 79 percent of antidepressant medications and see 60 percent of people being treated for depression in the United States, and they do that with little support from specialist services. Depression is not effectively managed in the primary care setting. Collaborative care based on a team approach, a population health perspective, and measurement-based care has been proven to treat depression more effectively than care as usual in a variety of settings and for different populations, and it increases people’s access to medications and behavioral therapies. Psychiatry has the responsibility of supporting the primary care sector in delivering mental health services by disseminating collaborative care approaches under recent initiatives and opportunities made possible by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).     

Enablers and barriers to implementing collaborative care for anxiety and depression: a systematic qualitative review

Background

Collaborative care is an increasingly popular approach for improving quality of care for people with mental health problems through an intensified and structured collaboration between primary care providers and health professionals with specialized psychiatric expertise. Trials have shown significant positive effects for patients suffering from depression, but since collaborative care is a complex intervention, it is important to understand the factors which affect its implementation. We present a qualitative systematic review of the enablers and barriers to implementing collaborative care for patients with anxiety and depression.

Methods

We developed a comprehensive search strategy in cooperation with a research librarian and performed a search in five databases (EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest, and CINAHL). All authors independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Studies were included if they were published in English and based on the original qualitative data on the implementation of a collaborative care intervention targeted at depression or anxiety in an adult patient population in a high-income country. Our subsequent analysis employed the normalization process theory (NPT).

Results

We included 17 studies in our review of which 11 were conducted in the USA, five in the UK, and one in Canada. We identified several barriers and enablers within the four major analytical dimensions of NPT. Securing buy-in among primary care providers was found to be critical but sometimes difficult. Enablers included physician champions, reimbursement for extra work, and feedback on the effectiveness of collaborative care. The social and professional skills of the care managers seemed critical for integrating collaborative care in the primary health care clinic. Day-to-day implementation was also found to be facilitated by the care managers being located in the clinic since this supports regular face-to-face interactions between physicians and care managers.

Conclusions

The following areas require special attention when planning collaborative care interventions: effective educational programs, especially for care managers; issues of reimbursement in relation to primary care providers; good systems for communication and monitoring; and promoting face-to-face interaction between care managers and physicians, preferably through co-location. There is a need for well-sampled, in-depth qualitative studies on the implementation of collaborative care in settings outside the USA and the UK.

     

甘肃康乐县基层卫生机构门诊临床路径管理探讨

为了有效发挥基层医疗卫生机构健康“守门人”职能,康乐县借助卫XI项目支持,积极开展基层医疗卫生机构门诊临床路径管理探索,有效发挥了新农合与定点医疗机构管理的协同作用,实现了医疗质量提高与费用控制的有效结合,并在规范诊疗行为、减低医疗服务成本、改善医患关系等方面发挥了积极作用。

     

Community-based mental health care in Africa: mental health workers’ views

The World Health Organization (WHO) has for long proposed the development of community-based mental health services worldwide. However, the progress toward community mental health care in most African countries is still hampered by a lack of resources, with specialist psychiatric care essentially based in large, centrally located mental hospitals. It is again time to reconsider the direction of mental health care in Africa. Based on a small inquiry to a number of experienced mental health professionals in sub-Saharan Africa, we discuss what a community concept of mental health care might mean in Africa. There is a general agreement that mental health services should be integrated in primary health care. A critical issue for success of this model is perceived to be provision of appropriate supervision and continuing education for primary care workers. The importance of collaboration between modern medicine and traditional healers is stressed and the paper ends in a plea for WHO to take the initiative and develop mental health services according to the special needs and the socio-cultural conditions prevailing in sub-Saharan Africa.     

Advances in the Conceptualization and Measurement of Health Care Empowerment: Development and Validation of the Health Care Empowerment Inventory

The Health Care Empowerment Model offers direction for the investigation of patient-controlled engagement and involvement in health care. At the core of the model is the construct of Health Care Empowerment (HCE), for which there exist no validated measures. A set of 27 candidate self-report survey items was constructed to capture five hypothesized inter-related facets of HCE (informed, engaged, committed, collaborative, and tolerant of uncertainty). The full item set was administered to 644 HIV-infected persons enrolled in three ongoing research studies. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in a two factor solution comprising four items each on two subscales: (1) HCE: Informed, Committed, Collaborative, and Engaged HCE ICCE) and (2) HCE Tolerance of Uncertainty (HCE TU). Subscale scores were evaluated for relationships with relevant constructs measured in the three studies, including depression, provider relationships, medication adherence, and HIV-1 viral load. Findings suggest the utility of this 8-item Health Care Empowerment Inventory (HCEI) in efforts to measure, understand, and track changes in the ways in which individuals engage in health care.     

Fidelity of implementation: development and testing of a measure

Background

There is a considerable evidence base for 'collaborative care' as a method to improve quality of care for depression, but an acknowledged gap between efficacy and implementation. This study utilises the Normalisation Process Model (NPM) to inform the process of implementation of collaborative care in both a future full-scale trial, and the wider health economy.

Methods

Application of the NPM to qualitative data collected in both focus groups and one-to-one interviews before and after an exploratory randomised controlled trial of a collaborative model of care for depression.

Results

Findings are presented as they relate to the four factors of the NPM (interactional workability, relational integration, skill-set workability, and contextual integration) and a number of necessary tasks are identified. Using the model, it was possible to observe that predictions about necessary work to implement collaborative care that could be made from analysis of the pre-trial data relating to the four different factors of the NPM were indeed borne out in the post-trial data. However, additional insights were gained from the post-trial interview participants who, unlike those interviewed before the trial, had direct experience of a novel intervention. The professional freedom enjoyed by more senior mental health workers may work both for and against normalisation of collaborative care as those who wish to adopt new ways of working have the freedom to change their practice but are not obliged to do so.

Conclusions

The NPM provides a useful structure for both guiding and analysing the process by which an intervention is optimized for testing in a larger scale trial or for subsequent full-scale implementation.     

Alzheimer's disease multiple intervention trial (ADMIT): study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Given the current lack of disease-modifying therapies, it is important to explore new models of longitudinal care for older adults with dementia that focus on improving quality of life and delaying functional decline. In a previous clinical trial, we demonstrated that collaborative care for Alzheimer's disease reduces patients' neuropsychiatric symptoms as well as caregiver stress. However, these improvements in quality of life were not associated with delays in subjects' functional decline. Trial design Parallel randomized controlled clinical trial with 1:1 allocation. Participants A total of 180 community-dwelling patients aged [greater than or equal to]45 years who are diagnosed with possible or probable Alzheimer's disease; subjects must also have a caregiver willing to participate in the study and be willing to accept home visits. Subjects and their caregivers are enrolled from the primary care and geriatric medicine practices of an urban public health system serving Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Interventions All patients receive best practices primary care including collaborative care by a dementia care manager over two years; this best practices primary care program represents the local adaptation and implementation of our prior collaborative care intervention in the urban public health system. Intervention patients also receive in-home occupational therapy delivered in twenty-four sessions over two years in addition to best practices primary care. The focus of the occupational therapy intervention is delaying functional decline and helping both subjects and caregivers adapt to functional impairments. The in-home sessions are tailored to the specific needs and goals of each patient-caregiver dyad; these needs are expected to change over the course of the study.Objective To determine whether best practices primary care plus home-based occupational therapy delays functional decline among patients with Alzheimer's disease compared to subjects treated in the control group. Outcomes The primary outcome is the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Studies Group Activities of Daily Living Scale; secondary outcome measures are two performance-based measures including the Short Physical Performance Battery and Short Portable Sarcopenia Measure. Outcome assessments for both the caregiver-reported scale and subjects' physical performance scales are completed in the subject's home. Randomization Eligible patient-care giver dyads will be stratified by clinic type and block randomized with a computer developed randomization scheme using a 1:1 allocation ratio. Blinding Single blinded. Research assistants completing the outcome assessments were blinded to the subjects' treatment group. Trial status Ongoing ClinicalTrial.Gov identifier NCT01314950; date of completed registration 10 March 2011; date first patient randomized 9 March 2011.     

Cancer prevention: setting the scene.

Each year in the United Kingdom there are over 300,000 new cases of cancer and nearly 165,000 deaths from cancer. It is widely believed that as many as four fifths of all cancers are preventable by means that are already available. The Health of the Nation and the Europe Against Cancer programme have set targets and strategies for reducing the risk of cancer. An approach based on the whole population will achieve the greatest reductions in morbidity and mortality. Complementary to this is the individual approach, which can be based in primary care and targeted at high risk subjects. Health promotion and screening in primary care are not in themselves self evidently valuable. Their effectiveness must be tested rigorously and scientifically. Furthermore, because of limited time and resources, health education in primary care should be focused on interventions that are likely to achieve the greatest benefit, such as helping people to stop smoking.     

干部保健工作中实施老年综合健康评估的思考

科学实施干部健康评估、推进实现干部健康管理是干部保健工作的重要发展方向。通过介绍国外老年综合健康评估的概念、内容和特点,指出在干部保健工作中实施老年综合健康评估具有重要意义,可以促进提高干部保健工作的全面性、系统性和科学性,为真正实现保健管理向健康管理模式转变奠定基础。认为要在干部保健工作中开展老年综合健康评估,必须从5个方面来综合管控：转变观念认识,积极推进健康管理理念;提高人员素质,大力发展老年医学教育;加强组织领导,有效组建多科协作团队;创新方法手段,科学建立适宜评估体系;强化以评促管,配套建立长效评估机制。     

Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for the Treatment of Depressive Disorders in Primary Care: A Systematic Review

BackgroundFor the treatment of depressive disorders, the framework of collaborative care has been recommended, which showed improved outcomes in the primary care sector. Yet, an earlier literature review did not find sufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care.PurposeTo systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care, compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care.MethodsA systematic literature search in major databases was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. To ensure comparability across studies, cost data were inflated to the year 2012 using country-specific gross domestic product inflation rates, and were adjusted to international dollars using purchasing power parities (PPP).ResultsIn total, 19 cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed. The included studies had sample sizes between n = 65 to n = 1,801, and time horizons between six to 24 months. Between 42% and 89% of the CHEC quality criteria were fulfilled, and in only one study no risk of bias was identified. A societal perspective was used by five studies. Incremental costs per depression-free day ranged from dominance to US$PPP 64.89, and incremental costs per QALY from dominance to US$PPP 874,562.ConclusionDespite our review improved the comparability of study results, cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care for the treatment of patients with depressive disorders in primary care is ambiguous depending on willingness to pay. A still considerable uncertainty, due to inconsistent methodological quality and results among included studies, suggests further cost-effectiveness analyses using QALYs as effect measures and a time horizon of at least 1 year.     

Integration of mental health into primary care and community health working in Kenya: context, rationale, coverage and sustainability

Integration of mental health into primary care is essential to meet population needs yet faces many challenges if such projects are to achieve impact and be sustainable in low income countries alongside other competing priorities. This paper describes the rationale and progress of a collaborative project in Kenya to train primary care and community health workers about mental health and integrate mental health into their routine work, Within a health systems strengthening approach. So far 1877 health workers have been trained. The paper describes the multiple challenges faced by the project, and reviews the mechanisms deployed which have strengthened its impact and sustainability to date.     

A Teaching Framework for Cross-cultural Health Care—Application in Family Practice

Significant demographic changes in patient populations have contributed to an increasing awareness of the impact of cultural diversity on the provision of health care. For this reason methods are being developed to improve the cultural sensitivity of persons responsible for giving health care to patients whose health beliefs may be at variance with biomedical models.Building on methods of elicitation suggested in the literature, we have developed a set of guidelines within a framework called the LEARN model. Health care providers who have been exposed to this educational framework and have incorporated this model into the normal structure of the therapeutic encounter have been able to improve communication, heighten awareness of cultural issues in medical care and obtain better patient acceptance of treatment plans.The emphasis of this teaching model is not on the dissemination of particular cultural information, though this too is helpful. The primary focus is rather on a suggested process for improved communication, which we see as the fundamental need in cross-cultural patient-physician interactions.     

Politics, Practical Logic, and Primary Health Care in Rural Haiti

During the 1980s, an ambitious project for health development restructured medical services throughout rural Haiti. The "Rural Health Delivery System" (RHDS) pursued several goals of primary health care, including dispensary-based maternal and child health services and the provision of low–cost drugs. Based on fieldwork in a single village, this article examines how local residents pushed the project in unpredictable and ironic directions. People did not regard dispensary services—which were planned and financed by international health agencies—as essentially foreign elements in the local health–care system. They rather engaged with the dispensary according to long–standing local strategies for prestige and economic advance. Despite the dramatically new shape of biomedicine introduced by the RHDS, the dispensary remained for most people a recognizable arena to gain access to state resources or to contest state control over their lives. The "success" of clinic services, and the "failure" of the project to distribute essential drugs arose more from people's practical routes to symbolic and material power than from the formal plans of health planners or state bureaucrats. This practice-based analysis provides another dimension to both the liberal and neo-Marxist critiques of international health development, [primary health care, community participation, planned development, Haiti]