Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26373711›Full record

Trial reportBMC psychiatry2015

Cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of the Boston University approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation for societal participation in people with severe mental illness: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

Sarita A Sanches, Wilma E Swildens, Jooske T van Busschbach, A Dennis Stant, Talitha L Feenstra, Jaap van Weeghel

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarita A SanchesAltrecht Mental Health Care, Lange Nieuwstraat 119, 3512, PG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. s.sanches@altrecht.nl.
Wilma E SwildensAltrecht Mental Health Care, Lange Nieuwstraat 119, 3512, PG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. w.swildens@altrecht.nl.
Jooske T van BusschbachUniversity Center for Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.t.van.busschbach@umcg.nl.
A Dennis StantZovon, Walhofstraat 28, 7522, BL, Enschede, The Netherlands. a.d.stant@zovon.nl.
Talitha L FeenstraDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. t.l.feenstra@umcg.nl.
Jaap van WeeghelTranzo Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, Tilburg University, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, PO Box 90153, 5000, LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands. J.vanWeeghel@tilburguniversity.edu.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLTilburg University · NLAltrecht GGZ · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with Severe Mental Illness (SMI) frequently experience problems with regard to societal participation (i.e. work, education and daily activities outside the home), and require professional support in this area. The Boston University approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) is a comprehensive methodology that can offer this type of support. To date, several Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT's) investigating the effectiveness of BPR have yielded positive outcomes with regard to societal participation. However, information about the cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of the methodology, which may be important for broader dissemination of the approach, is lacking. BPR may be more cost effective than Care As Usual (CAU) because an increase in participation and independence may reduce the costs to society. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of BPR for people with SMI who wish to increase their societal participation. In addition, the budget impact of implementing BPR in the Dutch healthcare setting will be assessed by means of a budget impact analysis (BIA) after completion of the trial.

methodsIn a multisite RCT, 225 adults (18-64 years of age) with SMI will be randomly allocated to the experimental (BPR) or the control condition (CAU). Additionally, a pilot study will be conducted with a group of 25 patients with severe and enduring eating disorders. All participants will be offered support aimed at personal rehabilitation goals, and will be monitored over a period of a year. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months after enrolment. Based on trial results, further analyses will be performed to assess cost-effectiveness and the budgetary impact of implementation scenarios. DISCUSSION: The trial results will provide insight into the cost-effectiveness of BPR in supporting people with SMI who would like to increase their level of societal participation. These results can be used to make decisions about further implementation of the method. Also, assessing budgetary impact will facilitate policymaking. The large sample size, geographic coverage and heterogeneity of the study group will ensure reliable generalisation of the study results.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN88987322. Registered 13 May 2014.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisEmployment, SupportedFemaleHealth Care CostsHealth StatusHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedNetherlandsPilot ProjectsPsychiatric RehabilitationSample Size

Identifiers

PMID26373711
PMCPMC4571072
OpenAlexW1809657683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.