Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351533›Full record

Trial reportThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2022

Economic evaluation of a complex intervention (Engager) for prisoners with common mental health problems, near to and after release: a cost-utility and cost-consequences analysis.

Rachael Maree Hunter, Rob Anderson, Tim Kirkpatrick, Charlotte Lennox, Fiona Warren, Rod S Taylor, Jenny Shaw, Mark Haddad, Alex Stirzaker, Mike Maguire and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Rachael Maree HunterResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London (UCL), Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF, UK. r.hunter@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7447-8934
Rob AndersonPrimary Care Department, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Tim KirkpatrickDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Charlotte LennoxDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Fiona WarrenPrimary Care Department, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Rod S TaylorPrimary Care Department, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Jenny ShawDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mark HaddadCity, University of London, London, UK.
Alex StirzakerNHS England, South West Mental Health Clinical Network, Taunton, UK.
Mike MaguireCentre for Criminology, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK.
Richard ByngCommunity and Primary Care Research Group, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.

Funding

Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-1210-12011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople in prison experience a range of physical and mental health problems. Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of prison-based interventions presents a number of methodological challenges. We present a case study of an economic evaluation of a prison-based intervention ("Engager") to address common mental health problems.

methodsTwo hundred and eighty people were recruited from prisons in England and randomised to Engager plus usual care or usual care. Participants were followed up for 12 months following release from prison. The primary analysis is the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of Engager compared to usual care from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective with QALYs calculated using the CORE 6 Dimension. A cost-consequences analysis evaluated cross-sectoral costs and a range of outcomes.

resultsFrom an NHS perspective, Engager cost an additional £2737 per participant (95% of iterations between £1029 and £4718) with a mean QALY difference of - 0.014 (95% of iterations between - 0.045 and 0.017). For the cost-consequences, there was evidence of improved access to substance misuse services 12 months post-release (odds ratio 2.244, 95% confidence Interval 1.304-3.861).

conclusionEngager provides a rare example of a cost-utility analysis conducted in prisons and the community using patient-completed measures. Although the results from this trial show no evidence that Engager is cost-effective, the results of the cost-consequences analysis suggest that follow-up beyond 12 months post-release using routine data may provide additional insights into the effectiveness of the intervention and the importance of including a wide range of costs and outcomes in prison-based economic evaluations.

trial registration(ISRCTN11707331).

Indexed as

PrisonersState MedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMental HealthQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeCommon mental health problemsCost-consequencesCost-utilityMentalisation therapyPrison

Identifiers

PMID34351533
PMCPMC8882099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.