ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2018
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an integrated care program for schizophrenia: an analysis of routine data.
Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shared Reflection to Maximize Resources and Minimize Costs: The Reflecting Team Applied to a Hospital Environment.Community mental health journal · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Germany, a regional social health insurance fund provides an integrated care program for patients with schizophrenia (IVS). Based on routine data of the social health insurance, this evaluation examined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the IVS compared to the standard care (control group, CG). The primary outcome was the reduction of psychiatric inpatient treatment (days in hospital), and secondary outcomes were schizophrenia-related inpatient treatment, readmission rates, and costs. To reduce selection bias, a propensity score matching was performed. The matched sample included 752 patients. Mean number of psychiatric and schizophrenia-related hospital days of patients receiving IVS (2.3 ± 6.5, 1.7 ± 5.0) per quarter was reduced, but did not differ statistically significantly from CG (2.7 ± 7.6, 1.9 ± 6.2; p = 0.772, p = 0.352). Statistically significant between-group differences were found in costs per quarter per person caused by outpatient treatment by office-based psychiatrists (IVS: €74.18 ± 42.30, CG: €53.20 ± 47.96; p < 0.001), by psychiatric institutional outpatient departments (IVS: €4.83 ± 29.57, CG: €27.35 ± 76.48; p < 0.001), by medication (IVS: €471.75 ± 493.09, CG: €429.45 ± 532.73; p = 0.015), and by psychiatric outpatient nursing (IVS: €3.52 ± 23.83, CG: €12.67 ± 57.86, p = 0.045). Mean total psychiatric costs per quarter per person in IVS (€1117.49 ± 1662.73) were not significantly lower than in CG (€1180.09 ± 1948.24; p = 0.150). No statistically significant differences in total schizophrenia-related costs per quarter per person were detected between IVS (€979.46 ± 1358.79) and CG (€989.45 ± 1611.47; p = 0.084). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed cost savings of €148.59 per reduced psychiatric and €305.40 per reduced schizophrenia-related hospital day. However, limitations, especially non-inclusion of costs related to management of the IVS and additional home treatment within the IVS, restrict the interpretation of the results. Therefore, the long-term impact of this IVS deserves further evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28791485What 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.