Trial reportPloS one2014
Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (CADET).
Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Arts and creativity interventions for improving health and wellbeing in older adults: a systematic literature review of economic evaluation studies.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Patient-Centred Medical Home-Based Models of Care versus Standard Primary Care in Chronic Disease Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised and Non-Randomised Controlled Trials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of depressive disorders in primary care: a systematic review.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (versus usual care) for people with mental-physical multimorbidity: cluster-randomised trial.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2018Trial
- Economic evaluation of an experience sampling method intervention in depression compared with treatment as usual using data from a randomized controlled trial.BMC psychiatry · 2017Trial
- Trial
- First implementation of a collaborative care model for common mental disorders in primary care in France: fidelity of care manager intervention matters.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Health and social care use, costs, and satisfaction among key workers accessing Resilience Hub support during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Healing the Whole: An International Review of the Collaborative Care Model between Primary Care and Psychiatry.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Estimating the effects of Basic Income schemes on mental and physical health among adults aged 18 and above in the UK: A microsimulation study.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- Article
- Balance Right in Multiple Sclerosis (BRiMS): a feasibility randomised controlled trial of a falls prevention programme.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2021Article
- Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.Health economics review · 2020Review
- Evolving Models of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care.Current psychiatry reports · 2019Review
- Balance Right in Multiple Sclerosis (BRiMS): a guided self-management programme to reduce falls and improve quality of life, balance and mobility in people with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: a protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
- Potential for substitution of mental health care towards family practices: an observational study.BMC family practice · 2017Observational
- Do measures of depressive symptoms function differently in people with spinal cord injury versus primary care patients: the CES-D, PHQ-9, and PROMISQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017Article
- Consultations in general practices with and without mental health nurses: an observational study from 2010 to 2014.BMJ open · 2016Observational
- Cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients with depression: evidence from the Healthlines randomised controlled trial.BJPsych open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCollaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking.
aimsTo assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.
methodsAn 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionCollaborative 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.
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.