ArticleEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2012
The use of a Cumulative Needs for Care Monitor for individual treatment v. care as usual for patients diagnosed with severe mental illness, a cost-effectiveness analysis from the health care perspective.
Article in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing personal recovery in individuals with severe mental illness: validation of the Dutch Brief INSPIRE-O.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2025Article
- The clinical characterization of the patient with primary psychosis aimed at personalization of management.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo study the systematic assessment of need for care and clinical parameters for use in treatment plans in patients diagnosed with severe mental illness.
methodsThe Cumulative Needs for Care Monitor (CNCM) includes various validated instruments, such as the Camberwell Assessment of Need. A Markov-type cost-effectiveness model (health care perspective, 5-year time horizon) was used to compare CNCM with care as usual (CAU). Two studies were used to determine model parameters: a before–after study (n = 2155) and a matched-control study (n = 937).
resultsThe CNCM may lead to a gain in psychiatric functioning according to the models. CNCM patients remain in (outpatient) care, while CAU patients drop out more frequently. There is only a small difference in inpatient care. As a result, average costs per patient in the CNCM group are between €2809 (before–after model) and €5251 (matched-control model) higher. The iCER was between €45 127 and €57 839 per life year without psychiatric dysfunction gained.
conclusionsCNCM may be only cost-effective when willingness to pay for a life year without psychiatric dysfunction is higher than €45 000. However, this result is highly sensitive to the level of psychiatric dysfunctioning in patients who do not receive care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.