Trial reportJournal of occupational rehabilitation2014
Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative care intervention for major depressive disorder in an occupational healthcare setting.
Trial report in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 8 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of the Participatory Approach on Return-to-Work of Sick-Listed Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Evidence for the Cost-Effectiveness of Return-to-Work Interventions for Mental Illness Related Sickness Absences: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2021Pooled it
- Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions for common mental disorders in the occupational health service: a systematic review with a narrative synthesis.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Conditions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2018Pooled it
- Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of depressive disorders in primary care: a systematic review.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- A cost-utility analysis for return-to-work interventions comparing alternative methods for handling missing health-related quality of life data.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Coping with complexity in the COVID pandemic: An exploratory study of intensive care units.Human factors and ergonomics in manufacturing · 2022Article
- The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System Intervention to Reduce Employee Work-Related Stress and Enhance Work Performance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.Health economics review · 2020Review
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool: matched care for patients with a mental disorder in need of highly specialised care.BJPsych open · 2020Article
- Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations in Integrated Care: Evidence from a Systematic Review.International journal of integrated care · 2019Article
- Article
- Comparative Effect of Collaborative Care, Pain Medication, and Duloxetine in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder and Comorbid (Sub)Chronic Pain: Results of an Exploratory Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trial (CC:PAINDIP).Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Article
- Cost-utility of collaborative care for the treatment of comorbid major depressive disorder in outpatients with chronic physical conditions. A randomized controlled trial in the general hospital setting (CC-DIM).Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2017Article
- Psychosomatic consultation in the workplace: opportunities and limitations of the services offered--results of a qualitative study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2016Article
- Horizon 2020 priorities in clinical mental health research: results of a consensus-based ROAMER expert survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMajor depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken.
methodsIn this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life.
resultsThe average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were €3,874 (95 % CI €2,778-€ 5,718) compared to €4,583 (95 % CI €3,108-€6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY's) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 %) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result.
conclusionsThe cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention.
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.