David Aceituno1, Norha Vera2, A Matthew Prina3, Paul McCrone4. 1. PhD Candidate, Health Service and Population Research Department,Institute of Psychiatry,Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,UK; andPsychiatry Department, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile,Chile. 2. PhD Candidate, Health Service and Population Research Department,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,King's College London,UK. 3. Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology, Health Service and Population Research Department,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,King's College London,UK. 4. Professor of Health Economics, Health Service and Population Research Department,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,King's College London,UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) has been developed as an approach to improve the prognosis of people with psychotic disorders and it has been claimed to be a more efficient model of care. However, the evidence is not definitive and doubts have spread regard to the economic outcomes of EIP services amid the usually restricted mental health budget.AimsWe aimed to review the cost-effectiveness evidence of EIP services worldwide. METHOD: We systematically reviewed the economic literature about EIP following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. Studies were selected according to previously stated criteria and analysed with standardised critical appraisal tools for trial-based economic evaluations and modelling studies. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were selected after applying the eligibility criteria. Most of them were economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. The overall evidence was consistent in the cost-effectiveness of EIP compared with standard care for first episode of psychosis and the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis paradigm. Such evidence was replicated among different health systems, but mainly in high-income countries. The methodological quality of such evidence, however, was moderate and heterogeneity was significant across the studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence that the implementation of EIP services might be a cost-effective alternative across different health systems. Such evidence, nevertheless, derives from heterogeneous and sometimes methodologically flawed studies, reducing the certainty of such statement. More efforts must be done to rigorously assess the value of this intervention, before expanding it among systems where mental health budgets are more constrained.Declaration of interestNone.
BACKGROUND: Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) has been developed as an approach to improve the prognosis of people with psychotic disorders and it has been claimed to be a more efficient model of care. However, the evidence is not definitive and doubts have spread regard to the economic outcomes of EIP services amid the usually restricted mental health budget.AimsWe aimed to review the cost-effectiveness evidence of EIP services worldwide. METHOD: We systematically reviewed the economic literature about EIP following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. Studies were selected according to previously stated criteria and analysed with standardised critical appraisal tools for trial-based economic evaluations and modelling studies. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were selected after applying the eligibility criteria. Most of them were economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. The overall evidence was consistent in the cost-effectiveness of EIP compared with standard care for first episode of psychosis and the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis paradigm. Such evidence was replicated among different health systems, but mainly in high-income countries. The methodological quality of such evidence, however, was moderate and heterogeneity was significant across the studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence that the implementation of EIP services might be a cost-effective alternative across different health systems. Such evidence, nevertheless, derives from heterogeneous and sometimes methodologically flawed studies, reducing the certainty of such statement. More efforts must be done to rigorously assess the value of this intervention, before expanding it among systems where mental health budgets are more constrained.Declaration of interestNone.
Authors: Patrick D McGorry; Cristina Mei; Andrew Chanen; Craig Hodges; Mario Alvarez-Jimenez; Eóin Killackey Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Christoph U Correll; Celso Arango; Michael Berk; Vikram Patel; John P A Ioannidis Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 79.683
Authors: Nicole Kozloff; George Foussias; Janet Durbin; Sanjeev Sockalingam; Jean Addington; Donald Addington; Augustina Ampofo; Kelly K Anderson; Melanie Barwick; Sarah Bromley; Jasmyn E A Cunningham; Simone Dahrouge; Lillian Duda; Catherine Ford; Sheila Gallagher; John D Haltigan; Joanna Henderson; Alexia Jaouich; Dielle Miranda; Patrick Mitchell; Josette Morin; Claire de Oliveira; Valerie Primeau; Eva Serhal; Sophie Soklaridis; Diana Urajnik; Krista Whittard; Juveria Zaheer; Paul Kurdyak; Aristotle N Voineskos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nicholas J K Breitborde; Hossam Guirgis; Walter Stearns; Kristen M Carpenter; Ghada Lteif; Jacob G Pine; Nichole Storey; Heather Wastler; Aubrey M Moe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 2.692