Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30530872›Full record

Trial reportThe journal of mental health policy and economics2018

An Economic Evaluation of Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) Services for First-Episode Psychosis in the U.S. Public Sector.

Sean M Murphy, Suat Kucukgoncu, Yuhua Bao, Fangyong Li, Cenk Tek, Nicholas J K Breitborde, Sinan Guloksuz, Vivek H Phutane, Banu Ozkan, Jessica M Pollard and 5 more

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The journal of mental health policy and economics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

15 authors.

Sean M MurphyDepartment of Healthcare Policy and Research, 425 East 61st Street, Suite 301, New York, NY 10065, USA, smm2010@med.cornell.edu.
Suat Kucukgoncu
Yuhua Bao
Fangyong Li
Cenk Tek
Nicholas J K Breitborde
Sinan Guloksuz
Vivek H Phutane
Banu Ozkan
Jessica M Pollard
John D Cahill
Scott W Woods
Robert A Cole
Michael Schoenbaum
Vinod H Srihari

Funding

Specialized Treatment Early in Psychosis (STEP): A community health center basedRC1MH088971 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SRIHARI, VINOD H. · 2009 to 2010
$750k
NIMH NIH HHS RC1 MH088971
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSchizophrenia spectrum disorders exert a large and disproportionate economic impact. Early intervention services may be able to alleviate the burden of schizophrenia spectrum disorders on diagnosed individuals, caregivers, and society at large. Economic analyses of observational studies have supported investments in specialized team-based care for early psychosis; however, questions remain regarding the economic viability of first-episode services in the fragmented U.S. healthcare system. The clinic for Specialized Treatment Early in Psychosis (STEP) was established in 2006, to explicitly model a nationally-relevant U.S. public-sector early intervention service. The purpose of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of STEP, a Coordinated Specialty Care service (CSC) based in a U.S. State-funded community mental health center, relative to usual treatment (UT).

methodsEligible patients were within 5 years of psychosis onset and had no more than 12 weeks of lifetime antipsychotic exposure. Participants were randomized to STEP or UT. The annual per-patient cost of the STEP intervention per se was estimated assuming a steady-state caseload of 30 patients. A cost-offset analysis was conducted to estimate the net value of STEP from a third-party payer perspective. Participant healthcare service utilization was evaluated at 6 months and over the entire 12 months post randomization. Generalized linear model multivariable regressions were used to estimate the effect of STEP on healthcare costs over time, and generate predicted mean costs, which were combined with the per-patient cost of STEP.

resultsThe annual per-patient cost of STEP was $1,984. STEP participants were significantly less likely to have any inpatient or ED visits; among individuals who did use such services in a given period, the associated costs were significantly lower for STEP participants at month 12. We did not observe a similar effect with regard to other healthcare services. The predicted average total costs were lower for STEP than UT, indicating a net benefit for STEP of $1,029 at month 6 and $2,991 at month 12; however, the differences were not statistically significant.

conclusionsOur findings are promising with regard to the value of STEP to third-party payers.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationIntersectoral CollaborationAdolescentAdultCommunity Mental Health CentersComorbidityCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Medical InterventionFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMalePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychotic DisordersPublic SectorSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID30530872
PMCPMC6314808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.