Abstract
Background A number of enhancement strategies have been proposed to improve the quality and outcome of care for depression in primary care settings. Decision-makers are likely to need to know whether these interventions are costeffective in routine primary care settings.
Method We conducted a systematic review of all full economic evaluations (cost effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) accompanying randomised controlled trials of enhanced primary care for depression. Costs were standardised to UK pounds/US dollars and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were visually summarised using a permutation matrix.
Results We identified 11 full economic evaluations (4757 patients). A near-uniform finding was that the interventions based upon collaborative care/case management resulted in improved outcomes but were also associated with greater costs. When considering primary care depression treatment costs alone, ICER estimates ranged from 7 pound ($13, no confidence interval given) to 13 pound ($24,95% CI - 105 to 148) per additional depression free day. Educational interventions alone were associated with increased cost and no clinical benefit.
Conclusions Improved outcomes through depression management programmes using a collaborative care/case management approach can be expected, but are associated with increased cost and will require investment.
Declaration of interest None.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 297-308 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | British Journal of Psychiatry |
| Volume | 189 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2006 |
Keywords
- CONTROLLED-TRIAL
- COLLABORATIVE CARE
- QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
- MAJOR DEPRESSION
- HIGH UTILIZERS
- MEDICAL-CARE
- MANAGEMENT
- INTERVENTION
- PROGRAM
- IMPACT