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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resource Utilization in Severe Mental Illness (SMI) Before, During and After a Psychosocial Health Promotion Program - a Shift in Resource Utilization Towards Primary Care.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Do early intervention services for psychosis maintain their effects after transition to usual/modular care? A systematic review and meta-analysis.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026Article
- Enhancing Coordinated Specialty Care Through Early Detection: Impact of Reduced Duration of Untreated Psychosis.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Article
- The EnTRy Program: Expanding Coordinated Specialty Care Beyond Early Psychosis.Community mental health journal · 2025Article
- The Academic Community Early Psychosis Intervention Network: Toward building a novel learning health system across six US states.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Characterizing Crisis Services Offered by Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics: Results From a National Survey.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- Approaches and challenges to assessing risk of violence in first episode psychosis: A qualitative interview study of clinicians, patients and carers.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Inter-agency collaboration is associated with increased frequency of research use in children's mental health policy making.Health services research · 2022Article
- Simulating the role of knowledge brokers in policy making in state agencies: An agent-based model.Health services research · 2022Article
- Early Intervention Services for Schizophrenia: Looking Back and Looking Ahead.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
30530872PMC6314808What 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.