Aquilegia, Vol. 25 No. 7, November-December 2001: Newsletter of the Colorado Native Plant Society

https://epublications.regis.edu/aquilegia/1090/thumbnail.jp

Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)

Background: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. Methods: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. Results: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: –0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: –202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. Conclusion: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting

A cluster randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a 'whole systems' model of self-management support for the management of long- term conditions in primary care: trial protocol

BackgroundPatients with long-term conditions are increasingly the focus of quality improvement activities in health services to reduce the impact of these conditions on quality of life and to reduce the burden on care utilisation. There is significant interest in the potential for self-management support to improve health and reduce utilisation in these patient populations, but little consensus concerning the optimal model that would best provide such support. We describe the implementation and evaluation of self-management support through an evidence-based 'whole systems' model involving patient support, training for primary care teams, and service re-organisation, all integrated into routine delivery within primary care.MethodsThe evaluation involves a large-scale, multi-site study of the implementation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of this model of self-management support using a cluster randomised controlled trial in patients with three long-term conditions of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The outcome measures include healthcare utilisation and quality of life. We describe the methods of the cluster randomised trial.DiscussionIf the 'whole systems' model proves effective and cost-effective, it will provide decision-makers with a model for the delivery of self-management support for populations with long-term conditions that can be implemented widely to maximise 'reach' across the wider patient population.Trial registration numberISRCTN: ISRCTN9094004

Patient narrative: an ‘on-switch’ for evaluating best interests

This article examines how the wishes, feelings, values and beliefs of adults lacking capacity can be evaluated and the extent to which they are given effect in best interests decision-making. One way of fulfilling the clinician’s legal responsibilities to take a patient’s preferences into account is to explicitly link these to the notion of narrative. Narratives provide a compelling grounding and give weight to views and values that may have been informally and consistently expressed in the past. An evaluation of recent case law suggests that the trajectory of a person’s life, their character and personality, and the perspectives of those with whom the patient has valued relationships are given increasing judicial recognition. Attending to the narrative of the patient could lead to a more sophisticated judgement of best interests than an objective ‘balance sheet’ approach would allow and enable greater alignment with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Cost-effectiveness of supported self-management for CFS/ME patients in primary care

Background: Nurse led self-help treatments for people with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis (CFS/ME) have been shown to be effective in reducing fatigue but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a single blind randomised controlled trial comparing pragmatic rehabilitation (PR) and supportive listening (SL) delivered by primary care nurses, and treatment as usual (TAU) delivered by the general practitioner (GP) in North West England. A within trial analysis was conducted comparing the costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured within the time frame of the trial. 296 patients aged 18 and over with CFS/ME diagnosed using the Oxford criteria were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: Treatment as usual is less expensive and leads to better patient outcomes compared with Supportive Listening. Treatment as usual is also less expensive than Pragmatic Rehabilitation. PR was effective at reducing fatigue in the short term, but the impact of the intervention on QALYs was uncertain. However, based on the results of this trial, PR is unlikely to be cost-effective in this patient population. Conclusions: This analysis does not support the introduction of SL. Any benefits generated by PR are unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant recommending PR for this patient group on cost-effectiveness grounds alone. However, dissatisfaction with current treatment options means simply continuing with ‘treatment as usual’ in primary care is unlikely to be acceptable to patients and practitioners