Trial reportBMC family practice2012
Cost-effectiveness of problem-solving treatment in comparison with usual care for primary care patients with mental health problems: a randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for coordination of care to reduce use of health care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2014Pooled it
- The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Pooled it
- Using machine learning to forecast symptom changes among subclinical depression patients receiving stepped care or usual care.Journal of affective disorders · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Glucose and cholesterol stabilization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with depressive and anxiety symptoms by problem-solving therapy in primary care centers in Mexico City.Primary health care research & development · 2018Article
- Economic Evaluation of Mental Health Interventions: A Guide to Costing Approaches.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Article
- Healthcare utilization in general practice before and after psychological treatment: a follow-up data linkage study in primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2014Article
- Innovation in health economic modelling of service improvements for longer-term depression: demonstration in a local health community.BMC health services research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental health problems are common and are associated with increased disability and health care costs. Problem-Solving Treatment (PST) delivered to these patients by nurses in primary care might be efficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PST by mental health nurses compared with usual care (UC) by the general practitioner for primary care patients with mental health problems.
methodsAn economic evaluation from a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial. Patients with a positive General Health Questionnaire score (score ≥ 4) and who visited their general practitioner at least three times during the past 6 months were eligible. Outcome measures were improvement on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and QALYs based on the EQ-5D. Resource use was measured using a validated questionnaire. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Bootstrapping was used to analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of PST compared with UC.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes at 9 months. Mean total costs were €4795 in the PST group and €6857 in the UC group. Costs were not statistically significantly different between the two groups (95% CI -4698;359). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that PST was cost-effective in comparison with UC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.
conclusionsPST delivered by nurses seems cost-effective in comparison with UC. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since the difference in total costs was mainly caused by 3 outliers with extremely high indirect costs in the UC group.
trial registrationNederlands Trial Register ISRCTN51021015.
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.