ArticlePloS one2018
A supported self-help for recurrent depression in primary care; An economic evaluation alongside a multi-center randomised controlled trial.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic evaluation of preventive cognitive therapy versus care as usual in cognitive behavioral therapy responders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.Health economics review · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMajor depression is a prevalent mental disorder with a high risk of relapse or recurrence. Only few studies have focused on the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at the prevention of relapse or recurrence of depression in primary care.
aimTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a supported Self-help Preventive Cognitive Therapy (S-PCT) added to treatment-as-usual (TAU) compared with TAU alone for patients with a history of depression, currently in remission.
methodsAn economic evaluation alongside a multi-center randomised controlled trial was performed (n = 248) over a 12-month follow-up. Outcomes included relapse or recurrence of depression and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol-5D. Analyses were performed from both a societal and healthcare perspective. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations. Uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping and presented using the cost-effectiveness plane and the Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC). Cost estimates were adjusted for baseline costs.
resultsS-PCT statistically significantly decreased relapse or recurrence by 15% (95%CI 3;28) compared to TAU. Mean total societal costs were €2,114 higher (95%CI -112;4261). From a societal perspective, the ICER for relapse or recurrence was 13,515. At a Willingness To Pay (WTP) of 22,000 €/recurrence prevented, the probability that S-PCT is cost-effective, in comparison with TAU, is 80%. The ICER for QALYs was 63,051. The CEA curve indicated that at a WTP of 30,000 €/QALY gained, the probability that S-PCT is cost-effective compared to TAU is 21%.
conclusionsThough ultimately depending on the WTP of decision makers, we expect that for both relapse or recurrence and QALYs, S-PCT cannot be considered cost-effective compared to TAU.
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.