Trial reportBMC medicine2018
A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01151982 (Primary Prevention of Major Depression Based on the Level and Profile of Risk of Primary Care Attenders), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 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.
Primary Prevention of Major Depression Based on the Level and Profile of Risk of Primary Care Attenders: Cluster, Controlled, Randomised Trial
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Experiences of treatment-resistant mental health conditions in primary care: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.BMC primary care · 2022Pooled it
- Body mass index interacts with a genetic-risk score for depression increasing the risk of the disease in high-susceptibility individuals.Translational psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness evidence of mental health prevention and promotion interventions: A systematic review of economic evaluations.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions to Improve Mental Health and Prevent Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviours: A Systematic Literature Review.Administration and policy in mental health · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Users' perceptions about receiving personalized depression risk information: findings from a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2021Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multiple health behaviour change intervention in people aged between 45 and 75 years: a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care (EIRA study).The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021Trial
- Use of a personalised depression intervention in primary care to prevent anxiety: a secondary study of a cluster randomised trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Trial
- Effectiveness of a universal personalized intervention for the prevention of anxiety disorders: Protocol of a randomized controlled trial (the prevANS project).Internet interventions · 2023Article
- Structured communication methods for mental health consultations in primary care: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care based on risk predictive algorithms and decision support systems: protocol of the e-predictD study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Design of a health-economic Markov model to assess cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the prevention and treatment of depressive disorder.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2021Article
- Development of Digitally Obtainable 10-Year Risk Scores for Depression and Anxiety in the General Population.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.Health economics review · 2020Review
- Cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness-based mental health promotion program: economic evaluation of a nonrandomized controlled trial with propensity score matching.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Family physicians' views on participating in prevention of major depression. The predictD-EVAL qualitative study.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDepression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care.
methodsCost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months.
resultsWith a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results.
conclusionsCompared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010.
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.