CONTEXT: Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but treatment rates in primary care are low. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of 2 quality improvement (QI) interventions to improve treatment of depression in primary care and their effects on patient employment. DESIGN: Group-level randomized controlled trial conducted June 1996 to July 1999. SETTING:Forty-six primary care clinics in 6 community-based managed care organizations. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-one primary care clinicians and 1356 patients with positive screening results for current depression. INTERVENTIONS: Matched practices were randomly assigned to provide usual care (n = 443 patients) or to 1 of 2 QI interventions offering training to practice leaders and nurses, enhanced educational and assessment resources, and either nurses for medication follow-up (QI-meds; n = 424 patients) or trained local psychotherapists (QI-therapy; n = 489). Practices could flexibly implement the interventions, which did not assign type of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total health care costs, costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), days with depression burden, and employment over 24 months, compared between usual care and the 2 interventions. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, average health care costs increased $419 (11%) in QI-meds (P =.35) and $485 (13%) in QI-therapy (P =.28); estimated costs per QALY gained were between $15 331 and $36 467 for QI-meds and $9478 and $21 478 for QI-therapy; and patients had 25 (P =.19) and 47 (P =.01) fewer days with depression burden and were employed 17.9 (P =.07) and 20.9 (P =.03) more days during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Societal cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated QI efforts for depression is comparable with that of accepted medical interventions. The intervention effects on employment may be of particular interest to employers and other stakeholders.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but treatment rates in primary care are low. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of 2 quality improvement (QI) interventions to improve treatment of depression in primary care and their effects on patient employment. DESIGN: Group-level randomized controlled trial conducted June 1996 to July 1999. SETTING: Forty-six primary care clinics in 6 community-based managed care organizations. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-one primary care clinicians and 1356 patients with positive screening results for current depression. INTERVENTIONS: Matched practices were randomly assigned to provide usual care (n = 443 patients) or to 1 of 2 QI interventions offering training to practice leaders and nurses, enhanced educational and assessment resources, and either nurses for medication follow-up (QI-meds; n = 424 patients) or trained local psychotherapists (QI-therapy; n = 489). Practices could flexibly implement the interventions, which did not assign type of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total health care costs, costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), days with depression burden, and employment over 24 months, compared between usual care and the 2 interventions. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, average health care costs increased $419 (11%) in QI-meds (P =.35) and $485 (13%) in QI-therapy (P =.28); estimated costs per QALY gained were between $15 331 and $36 467 for QI-meds and $9478 and $21 478 for QI-therapy; and patients had 25 (P =.19) and 47 (P =.01) fewer days with depression burden and were employed 17.9 (P =.07) and 20.9 (P =.03) more days during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Societal cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated QI efforts for depression is comparable with that of accepted medical interventions. The intervention effects on employment may be of particular interest to employers and other stakeholders.
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; William H Gnam; Nancy Carnide; Emma Irvin; Benjamin C Amick; Kelly DeRango; Robert McMaster; Kimberley Cullen; Tesha Slack; Sandra Brouwer; Ute Bültmann Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2012-09
Authors: Osvaldo P Almeida; Jane Pirkis; Ngaire Kerse; Moira Sim; Leon Flicker; John Snowdon; Brian Draper; Gerard Byrne; Robert Goldney; Nicola T Lautenschlager; Nigel Stocks; Helman Alfonso; Jon J Pfaff Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Herbert C Schulberg; Edward P Post; Bruce L Rollman; Bea Herbeck Belnap; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2004 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Debra Lerner; David A Adler; Hong Chang; Leueen Lapitsky; Maggie Y Hood; Carla Perissinotto; John Reed; Thomas J McLaughlin; Ernst R Berndt; William H Rogers Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Kirsten M van Steenbergen-Weijenburg; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Eva K Horn; Harm W J van Marwijk; Aartjan T F Beekman; Frans F H Rutten; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 2.655