Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an exposure-based return-to-work programme for patients on sick leave due to common mental disorders: design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To reduce the duration of sick leave and loss of productivity due to common mental disorders (CMDs), we developed a return-to-work programme to be provided by occupational physicians (OPs) based on the principles of exposure in vivo (RTW-E programme). This study evaluates this programme's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness by comparing it with care as usual (CAU). The three research questions we have are: 1) Is an RTW-E programme more effective in reducing the sick leave of employees with common mental disorders, compared with care as usual? 2) Is an RTW-E programme more effective in reducing sick leave for employees with anxiety disorders compared with employees with other common mental disorders? 3) From a societal perspective, is an RTW-E programme cost-effective compared with care as usual?</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>This study was designed as a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up and randomization on the level of OPs. We aimed for 60 OPs in order to include 200 patients. Patients in the intervention group received the RTW-E programme. Patients in the control group received care as usual. Eligible patients had been on sick leave due to common mental disorders for at least two weeks and no longer than eight weeks. As primary outcome measures, we calculated the time until full return to work and the duration of sick leave. Secondary outcome measures were time until partial return to work, prevalence rate of sick leave at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months' follow-up, and scores of symptoms of distress, anxiety, depression, somatization, and fatigue; work capacity; perceived working conditions; self-efficacy for return to work; coping behaviour; avoidance behaviour; patient satisfaction; and work adaptations. As process measures, we used indices of compliance with the intervention in the intervention group and employee-supervisor communication in both groups. Economic costs were calculated from a societal perspective. The total costs consisted of the costs of consuming health care, costs of production loss due to sick leave and reduced productivity, and out-of-pocket costs of patients for travelling to their OP.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results will be published in 2009. The strengths and weaknesses of the study protocol are discussed.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN72643128</p

Randomised controlled trial of a psychiatric consultation model for treatment of common mental disorder in the occupational health setting

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are the most prevalent of all mental disorders, with the highest burden in terms of work absenteeism and utilization of health care services. Evidence-based treatments are available, but recognition and treatment could be improved, especially in the occupational health setting. The situation in this setting has recently changed in the Netherlands because of new legislation, which has resulted in reduced sickness absence. Severe mental disorder has now become one of the main causes of work absenteeism. Occupational physicians (OPs) are expected to take an active role in diagnosis and treatment, and seem to be in need of support for a new approach to handle cases of more complex mental disorders. Psychiatric consultation can be a collaborative care model to achieve this. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two-armed cluster-randomized clinical trial, with randomization among OPs. Forty OPs in two big companies providing medical care for multiple companies will be randomized to either the intervention group, i.e. psychiatric consultation embedded in a training programme, or the control group, i.e. only training aimed at recognition and providing Care As Usual. 60 patients will be included who have been absent from work for 6–52 weeks and who, after screening and a MINI interview, are diagnosed with depressive disorder, anxiety disorder or somatoform disorder based on DSM-IV criteria. Baseline measurements and follow up measurements (at 3 months and 6 months) will be assessed with questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is level of general functioning according to the SF-20. Secondary measures are severity of the mental disorder according to the PHQ and the SCL-90, quality of life (EQ-D5), measures of Return To Work and cost-effectiveness of the treatment assessed with the TiC-P. Process measures will be adherence to the treatment plan and assessment of the treatment provided by the Psychiatric Consultant (PC) in both groups. DISCUSSION: In the current study, a psychiatric consultation model that has already proved to be effective in the primary care setting, and aimed to enhance evidence-based care for patients with work absenteeism and common mental disorder will be evaluated for its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in the occupational health setting

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care including PST and an antidepressant treatment algorithm for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care; a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36. DISCUSSION: In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for chronically ill patients with comorbid depressive disorder in the general hospital setting, a randomised controlled trial

Background. Depressive disorder is one of the most common disorders, and is highly prevalent in chronically ill patients. The presence of comorbid depression has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Early diagnosis and well-organized treatment of depression has a positive influence on these aspects. Earlier research in the USA has reported good results with regard to the treatment of depression with a collaborative care approach and an antidepressant algorithm. In the UK 'Problem Solving Treatment' has proved to be feasible. However, in the general hospital setting this approach has not yet been evaluated. Methods/Design. CC: DIM (Collaborative Care: Depression Initiative in the Medical setting) is a two-armed randomised controlled trial with randomisation at patient level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in general hospitals in the Netherlands based on a collaborative care framework, including contracting, 'Problem Solving Treatment', antidepressant algorithm, and manual-guided self-help. 126 outpatients with diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular diseases will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Patients will be included if they have been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on the DSM-IV criteria in a two-step screening method. The intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach; the control group will receive 'care as usual'. Baseline and follow-up measurements (after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) will be performed by means of questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, as measured with the PHQ-9. The secondary outcome measure is the cost-effectiveness of these treatments according to the TiC-P, the EuroQol and the SF-36. Discussion. Earlier research has indicated that depressive disorder is a chronic, mostly recurrent illness, which tends to cluster with physical comorbidity. Even though the treatment of depressive disorder based on the guidelines for depression is proven effective, these guidelines are often insufficiently adhered to. Collaborative care and 'Problem Solving Treatment' will be specifically tailored to patients with depressive disorders and evaluated in a general hospital setting in the Netherlands

Multidisciplinary collaborative care for depressive disorder in the occupational health setting: Design of a randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Major depressive disorder (MDD) has major consequences for both patients and society, particularly in terms of needlessly long sick leave and reduced functioning. Although evidence-based treatments for MDD are available, they show disappointing results when implemented in daily practice. A focus on work is also lacking in the treatment of depressive disorder as well as communication of general practitioners (GPs) and other health care professionals with occupational physicians (OPs). The OP may play a more important role in the recovery of patients with MDD. Purpose of the present study is to tackle these obstacles by applying a collaborative care model, which has proven to be effective in the USA, with a focus on return to work (RTW). From a societal perspective, the (cost)effectiveness of this collaborative care treatment, as a way of transmural care, will be evaluated in depressed patients on sick leave in the occupational health setting.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A randomised controlled trial in which the treatment of MDD in the occupational health setting will be evaluated in the Netherlands. A transmural collaborative care model, including Problem Solving Treatment (PST), a workplace intervention, antidepressant medication and manual guided self-help will be compared with care as usual (CAU). 126 Patients with MDD on sick leave between 4 and 12 weeks will be included in the study. Care in the intervention group will be provided by a multidisciplinary team of a trained OP-care manager and a consultant psychiatrist. The treatment is separated from the sickness certification. Data will be collected by means of questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after baseline. Primary outcome measure is reduction of depressive symptoms, secondary outcome measure is time to RTW, tertiary outcome measure is the cost effectiveness.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The high burden of MDD and the high level of sickness absence among people with MDD contribute to the relevance of this study. The intervention is an innovative approach, with trained OPs in a new role as care managers in the treatment of MDD. If this intervention proves to be cost-effective, implementation will be very relevant for individual patients as well as for society.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN78462860</p