OBJECTIVE: To estimate the excess costs associated with bipolar disorders in Australia, based on prevalence (using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ)) and associated excess burden-of-illness costs. METHODS: Using data from the 2004 South Australian Health Omnibus Survey (HOS), a weighted cross-sectional survey of 3,015 adults, excess costs were estimated from health service utilisation. RESULTS: There was a 2.5% lifetime prevalence of bipolar disorders, delineated by the MDQ. Those persons (MDQ positive) reported a significantly greater use of services and a poorer health status and quality of life than those who were MDQ negative. Using the service provision perspective, excess costs of bipolar disorders in Australia were approx $3.97-$4.95 billion. CONCLUSIONS: These results from an Australian population demonstrate the significant economic burden of bipolar disorders. Our findings emphasise the need for further evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of different treatments, or alternative means of reducing the burden borne by individuals, the health system and the general community.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the excess costs associated with bipolar disorders in Australia, based on prevalence (using the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ)) and associated excess burden-of-illness costs. METHODS: Using data from the 2004 South Australian Health Omnibus Survey (HOS), a weighted cross-sectional survey of 3,015 adults, excess costs were estimated from health service utilisation. RESULTS: There was a 2.5% lifetime prevalence of bipolar disorders, delineated by the MDQ. Those persons (MDQ positive) reported a significantly greater use of services and a poorer health status and quality of life than those who were MDQ negative. Using the service provision perspective, excess costs of bipolar disorders in Australia were approx $3.97-$4.95 billion. CONCLUSIONS: These results from an Australian population demonstrate the significant economic burden of bipolar disorders. Our findings emphasise the need for further evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of different treatments, or alternative means of reducing the burden borne by individuals, the health system and the general community.
Authors: Robert M A Hirschfeld; Charles Holzer; Joseph R Calabrese; Myrna Weissman; Michael Reed; Marilyn Davies; Mark A Frye; Paul Keck; Susan McElroy; Lydia Lewis; Jonathan Tierce; Karen D Wagner; Elizabeth Hazard Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Robert D Goldney; Laura J Fisher; Eleonora Dal Grande; Anne W Taylor; Graeme Hawthorne Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Joseph R Calabrese; Robert M A Hirschfeld; Michael Reed; Marilyn A Davies; Mark A Frye; Paul E Keck; Lydia Lewis; Susan L McElroy; James P McNulty; Karen D Wagner Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Robert M A Hirschfeld; Joseph R Calabrese; Myrna M Weissman; Michael Reed; Marilyn A Davies; Mark A Frye; Paul E Keck; Lydia Lewis; Susan L McElroy; James P McNulty; Karen D Wagner Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Konstantinos N Fountoulakis; Allan Young; Lakshmi Yatham; Heinz Grunze; Eduard Vieta; Pierre Blier; Hans Jurgen Moeller; Siegfried Kasper Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.176