Trial reportBMJ open2018
Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02378272 (RCT on Care Manager Organization for Management of Mild-moderate Depression in the Primary Care Setting, Sweden), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
RCT on Care Manager Organization for Management of Mild-moderate Depression in the Primary Care Setting, Sweden
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Integrated care models for youth mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Collaborative Care Versus Consultation Liaison for Patients With Depression or Anxiety Disorders in General Practice in Denmark: 18-Month Follow-Up From the Collabri Flex Trials.Depression and anxiety · 2025Trial
- Clinical effectiveness of care managers in collaborative primary health care for patients with depression: 12- and 24-month follow-up of a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC primary care · 2022Trial
- Implementation of care managers for patients with depression: a cross-sectional study in Swedish primary care.BMJ open · 2020Trial
- Process evaluation of a cluster randomised intervention in Swedish primary care: using care managers in collaborative care to improve care quality for patients with depression.BMC family practice · 2019Trial
- Organisational and social work-environment experiences after care manager implementation: a repeated cross-sectional study in Swedish primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of algorithm-guided treatment and predefined duration treatment programmes for depression: exploring cost-effectiveness using routine care data.BMJ mental health · 2023Article
- Working with parents of children with complex mental health issues to improve care: A qualitative inquiry.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: 12-month economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2021Article
- Implementation of a Care Manager Organization and Its Association with Health Care Contacts and Psychotherapy: A Register-Based Study of Real-Life Outcomes at Primary Health Care Centers in Sweden.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- Care managers can be useful for patients with depression but their role must be clear: a qualitative study of GPs' experiences.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a care manager (CM) programme compared with care as usual (CAU) for treatment of depression at primary care centres (PCCs) from a healthcare as well as societal perspective.
designCost-effectiveness analysis.
setting23 PCCs in two Swedish regions.
participantsPatients with depression (n=342).
main outcome measuresA cost-effectiveness analysis was applied on a cluster randomised trial at PCC level where patients with depression had 3 months of contact with a CM (11 intervention PCCs, n=163) or CAU (12 control PCCs, n=179), with follow-up 3 and 6 months. Effectiveness measures were based on the number of depression-free days (DFDs) calculated from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: ∆Cost/∆QALY and ∆Cost/∆DFD. Sampling uncertainty was assessed based on non-parametric bootstrapping.
resultsHealth benefits were higher in intervention group compared with CAU group: QALYs (0.357 vs 0.333, p<0.001) and DFD reduction of depressive symptom score (79.43 vs 60.14, p<0.001). The mean costs per patient for the 6-month period were €368 (healthcare perspective) and €6217 (societal perspective) for the intervention patients and €246 (healthcare perspective) and €7371 (societal perspective) for the control patients (n.s.). The cost per QALY gained was €6773 (healthcare perspective) and from a societal perspective the CM programme was dominant. DISCUSSION: The CM programme was associated with a gain in QALYs as well as in DFD, while also being cost saving compared with CAU from a societal perspective. This result is of high relevance for decision-makers on a national level, but it must be observed that a CM programme for depression implies increased costs at the primary care level. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02378272; Results.
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.