Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Cost-effectiveness of structured group psychoed...

Electronic data

  • 1-s2.0-S0165032716318274-main

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Affective Disorders. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Affective Disorders, 21, 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.005

    Accepted author manuscript, 1.22 MB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Cost-effectiveness of structured group psychoeducation versus unstructured group support for bipolar disorder: results from a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Cost-effectiveness of structured group psychoeducation versus unstructured group support for bipolar disorder : results from a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial. / Camacho, E.M.; Ntais, D.; Jones, Steven; Riste, L.; Morriss, R.; Lobban, Fiona; Davies, L.M.

In: Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 211, 15.03.2017, p. 27-36.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{9fcb83093afd4c51b29dd1e80f52aac0,
title = "Cost-effectiveness of structured group psychoeducation versus unstructured group support for bipolar disorder: results from a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "Background Bipolar disorder (BD) costs the English economy an estimated £5.2billion/year, largely through incomplete recovery. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of group psychoeducation (PEd), versus group peer support (PS), for treating BD. Methods A 96-week pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT), conducted in NHS primary care. The primary analysis compared PEd with PS, using multiple imputed datasets for missing values. An economic model was used to compare PEd with treatment as usual (TAU). The perspective was Health and Personal Social Services. Results Participants receiving PEd (n=153) used more (costly) health-related resources than PS (n=151) (net cost per person £1098 (95% CI, £252-£1943)), with a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.023 (95% CI, 0.001–0.056). The cost per QALY gained was £47,739. PEd may be cost-effective (versus PS) if decision makers are willing to pay at least £37,500 per QALY gained. PEd costs £10,765 more than PS to avoid one relapse. The economic model indicates that PEd may be cost-effective versus TAU if it reduces the probability of relapse (by 15%) or reduces the probability of and increases time to relapse (by 10%). Limitations Participants were generally inconsistent in attending treatment sessions and low numbers had complete cost/QALY data. Factors contributing to pervasive uncertainty of the results are discussed. Conclusions This is the first economic evaluation of PEd versus PS in a pragmatic trial. PEd is associated with a modest improvement in health status and higher costs than PS. There is a high level of uncertainty in the data and results.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness, Bipolar disorder, Psychoeducation, Peer support",
author = "E.M. Camacho and D. Ntais and Steven Jones and L. Riste and R. Morriss and Fiona Lobban and L.M. Davies",
note = "This is the author{\textquoteright}s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Affective Disorders. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Affective Disorders, 211, 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.005",
year = "2017",
month = mar
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.005",
language = "English",
volume = "211",
pages = "27--36",
journal = "Journal of Affective Disorders",
issn = "0165-0327",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of structured group psychoeducation versus unstructured group support for bipolar disorder

T2 - results from a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial

AU - Camacho, E.M.

AU - Ntais, D.

AU - Jones, Steven

AU - Riste, L.

AU - Morriss, R.

AU - Lobban, Fiona

AU - Davies, L.M.

N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Affective Disorders. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Affective Disorders, 211, 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.005

PY - 2017/3/15

Y1 - 2017/3/15

N2 - Background Bipolar disorder (BD) costs the English economy an estimated £5.2billion/year, largely through incomplete recovery. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of group psychoeducation (PEd), versus group peer support (PS), for treating BD. Methods A 96-week pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT), conducted in NHS primary care. The primary analysis compared PEd with PS, using multiple imputed datasets for missing values. An economic model was used to compare PEd with treatment as usual (TAU). The perspective was Health and Personal Social Services. Results Participants receiving PEd (n=153) used more (costly) health-related resources than PS (n=151) (net cost per person £1098 (95% CI, £252-£1943)), with a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.023 (95% CI, 0.001–0.056). The cost per QALY gained was £47,739. PEd may be cost-effective (versus PS) if decision makers are willing to pay at least £37,500 per QALY gained. PEd costs £10,765 more than PS to avoid one relapse. The economic model indicates that PEd may be cost-effective versus TAU if it reduces the probability of relapse (by 15%) or reduces the probability of and increases time to relapse (by 10%). Limitations Participants were generally inconsistent in attending treatment sessions and low numbers had complete cost/QALY data. Factors contributing to pervasive uncertainty of the results are discussed. Conclusions This is the first economic evaluation of PEd versus PS in a pragmatic trial. PEd is associated with a modest improvement in health status and higher costs than PS. There is a high level of uncertainty in the data and results.

AB - Background Bipolar disorder (BD) costs the English economy an estimated £5.2billion/year, largely through incomplete recovery. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of group psychoeducation (PEd), versus group peer support (PS), for treating BD. Methods A 96-week pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT), conducted in NHS primary care. The primary analysis compared PEd with PS, using multiple imputed datasets for missing values. An economic model was used to compare PEd with treatment as usual (TAU). The perspective was Health and Personal Social Services. Results Participants receiving PEd (n=153) used more (costly) health-related resources than PS (n=151) (net cost per person £1098 (95% CI, £252-£1943)), with a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.023 (95% CI, 0.001–0.056). The cost per QALY gained was £47,739. PEd may be cost-effective (versus PS) if decision makers are willing to pay at least £37,500 per QALY gained. PEd costs £10,765 more than PS to avoid one relapse. The economic model indicates that PEd may be cost-effective versus TAU if it reduces the probability of relapse (by 15%) or reduces the probability of and increases time to relapse (by 10%). Limitations Participants were generally inconsistent in attending treatment sessions and low numbers had complete cost/QALY data. Factors contributing to pervasive uncertainty of the results are discussed. Conclusions This is the first economic evaluation of PEd versus PS in a pragmatic trial. PEd is associated with a modest improvement in health status and higher costs than PS. There is a high level of uncertainty in the data and results.

KW - Cost-effectiveness

KW - Bipolar disorder

KW - Psychoeducation

KW - Peer support

U2 - 10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.005

M3 - Journal article

VL - 211

SP - 27

EP - 36

JO - Journal of Affective Disorders

JF - Journal of Affective Disorders

SN - 0165-0327

ER -