Muralikrishnan Radhakrishnan1, Paul McCrone1, Louise Lafortune2, Linda Everard3, David Fowler4, Tim Amos5, Nick Freemantle6, Swaran P Singh7, Max Marshall8, Vimal Sharma9, Anna Lavis10, Peter B Jones11, Max Birchwood8. 1. King's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK. 2. Institute of Public Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 3. The Early Intervention Service, Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, Sussex, UK. 5. Academic Unit of Psychiatry, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 6. Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. 7. Mental Health and Wellbeing, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 8. School of Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 9. Early Intervention Service, Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust & University of Chester, UK. 10. Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, UK. 11. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
AIM: Early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis are being implemented, internationally. It is important to learn from established examples and define the components and intensity of services that provide good value for money. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of EIS according to how closely they adhered to the recommendations of the English Department of Health 2001 Policy Implementation Guide (PIG). METHODS: EIS from the National Eden Study were assessed using a measure of fidelity to the PIG that rated the presence or absence of 64 recommended items relating to team structure and practice. EIS were then classified into three groups: those with fidelity of 75-80%, 81-90% and 91-95%. Patient-level resource use and outcomes were measured 1 year following inception into the service; costs were calculated and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: At a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the 81-90% fidelity group had a 56.3% likelihood of being the most cost-effective option followed by 75-80% fidelity at 35.8% and 91-95% fidelity group (7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results from England suggest that striving to maximize fidelity may not be warranted, but that dropping below a certain level of fidelity may result in inefficient use of resources.
AIM: Early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis are being implemented, internationally. It is important to learn from established examples and define the components and intensity of services that provide good value for money. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of EIS according to how closely they adhered to the recommendations of the English Department of Health 2001 Policy Implementation Guide (PIG). METHODS: EIS from the National Eden Study were assessed using a measure of fidelity to the PIG that rated the presence or absence of 64 recommended items relating to team structure and practice. EIS were then classified into three groups: those with fidelity of 75-80%, 81-90% and 91-95%. Patient-level resource use and outcomes were measured 1 year following inception into the service; costs were calculated and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: At a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the 81-90% fidelity group had a 56.3% likelihood of being the most cost-effective option followed by 75-80% fidelity at 35.8% and 91-95% fidelity group (7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results from England suggest that striving to maximize fidelity may not be warranted, but that dropping below a certain level of fidelity may result in inefficient use of resources.
Authors: Grace Jagger; Lorena de la Fuente-Tomas; Jan Stochl; Sophie M Allan; Felix Clay; Lizzie Kenedler; Cate Treise; Jesus Perez Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2019-09-28
Authors: Kim T Mueser; Piper S Meyer-Kalos; Shirley M Glynn; David W Lynde; Delbert G Robinson; Susan Gingerich; David L Penn; Corrine Cather; Jennifer D Gottlieb; Patricia Marcy; Jennifer L Wiseman; Sheena Potretzke; Mary F Brunette; Nina R Schooler; Jean Addington; Robert A Rosenheck; Sue E Estroff; John M Kane Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: A-La Park; Miles Rinaldi; Beate Brinchmann; Eoin Killackey; Nils Abel P Aars; Arnstein Mykletun; David McDaid Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 7.156