BACKGROUND: Adherence interventions in psychotic disorders have produced mixed results. Even when an intervention improved adherence, benefits to patients were unclear. Treatment Adherence Therapy (TAT) also improved adherence relative to Treatment As Usual (TAU), but it had no effects on symptoms or quality of life. TAT may or may not reduce healthcare costs. AIM: To determine whether TAT reduces the use of healthcare resources, and thus healthcare costs. METHOD: Randomized controlled trial of TAT versus TAU with 98 patients. Interviews were conducted at baseline (T0), six months later, when TAT had been completed (T1) and at six-month follow-up (T2). We have used admission data and part of the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness (TiC-P). We compared total costs in the TAT group with those in the control group with the help of multivariate analysis of covariance. RESULTS:TAT did not significantly minimize total costs. In the TAT group, the mean one-year health-treatment cost per patient (including TAT sessions) was € 23 003.64 (SD=19 317.95), whereas in the TAU group it was € 22 489.88 (SD=25 224.57) (F(1)=.652, p=.42). However, there were two significant differences at item-level, both with higher costs for the TAU group: psychiatric nurse contacts and legal proceedings for court-ordered admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Because TAT did not reduce total healthcare costs, it did not contribute to cost-minimization. Its benefits are therefore questionable. No other adherence intervention has included analysis of cost-effectiveness or cost-minimization.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Adherence interventions in psychotic disorders have produced mixed results. Even when an intervention improved adherence, benefits to patients were unclear. Treatment Adherence Therapy (TAT) also improved adherence relative to Treatment As Usual (TAU), but it had no effects on symptoms or quality of life. TAT may or may not reduce healthcare costs. AIM: To determine whether TAT reduces the use of healthcare resources, and thus healthcare costs. METHOD: Randomized controlled trial of TAT versus TAU with 98 patients. Interviews were conducted at baseline (T0), six months later, when TAT had been completed (T1) and at six-month follow-up (T2). We have used admission data and part of the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness (TiC-P). We compared total costs in the TAT group with those in the control group with the help of multivariate analysis of covariance. RESULTS: TAT did not significantly minimize total costs. In the TAT group, the mean one-year health-treatment cost per patient (including TAT sessions) was € 23 003.64 (SD=19 317.95), whereas in the TAU group it was € 22 489.88 (SD=25 224.57) (F(1)=.652, p=.42). However, there were two significant differences at item-level, both with higher costs for the TAU group: psychiatric nurse contacts and legal proceedings for court-ordered admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Because TAT did not reduce total healthcare costs, it did not contribute to cost-minimization. Its benefits are therefore questionable. No other adherence intervention has included analysis of cost-effectiveness or cost-minimization.
Authors: Katelijne van Emmerik-van Oortmerssen; Ellen Vedel; Maarten W Koeter; Kim de Bruijn; Jack J M Dekker; Wim van den Brink; Robert A Schoevers Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 3.630