Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35739551›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2022

The cost-effectiveness of a proportionate parenting programme for primary caregivers and their child: an economic evaluation using evidence from the E-SEE Trial.

Edward Cox, Simon Walker, Sarah Blower, Filipa Sampaio, Tracey Bywater, Gerry Richardson

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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

6 authors.

Edward CoxCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK. edward.cox@york.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-0699
Simon WalkerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5750-3691
Sarah BlowerDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9168-9995
Filipa SampaioDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5540-9853
Tracey BywaterDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Gerry RichardsonCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBehavioural and mental disorders have become a public health crisis; averting mental ill-health in early years can achieve significant longer-term health benefits and cost savings. This study assesses whether the Enhancing Social-Emotional Health and Wellbeing in the Early Years (E-SEE-Steps)-a proportionate universal delivery model comprising the Incredible Babies book (IY-B) and the Incredible Years Infant (IY-I) and Toddler (IY-T) parenting programmes is cost-effective compared to services as usual (SAU) for the primary caregiver, child and dyad.

methodsUsing UK data for 339 primary caregivers from the E-SEE trial, we conducted a within-trial economic evaluation assessing the cost-effectiveness of E-SEE Steps. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in UK pounds sterling (2018-19). Missing data were populated via multiple imputation and costs and QALYs discounted at 3.5% per annum. Cost-effectiveness results were conducted for primary caregivers, children and dyad using econometric modelling to control for patient co-variables. Uncertainty was explored through scenario and sensitivity analyses.

resultsThe average cost of E-SEE Steps intervention was £458.50 per dyad. E-SEE Steps was associated with modest gains in primary caregiver HRQoL but minor decrements in child HRQoL compared to SAU. For primary caregivers, E-SEE Steps was more effective (0.034 QALYs) and more costly (£446) compared to SAU, with a corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £13,011 per QALY. In children, E-SEE Steps was strictly dominated with poorer outcomes (-0.005 QALYs) and greater costs (£178) relative to SAU. QALY gains in primary caregivers exceeded those QALY losses found in children, meaning E-SEE Steps was more effective (0.031 QALYs) and costly (£621) for the dyad (ICER: £20,062 per QALY). All scenario analyses found E-SEE Steps cost-effective for the dyad at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Sensitivity analyses found significant cost reductions from expansions in programme delivery and attendance.

conclusionsE-SEE Steps achieved modest health gains in primary caregivers but small negative effects on children and was more costly than SAU. E-SEE Steps appears cost-effective for the dyad, but the results should be interpreted with caution given the potential detrimental impact on children.

trial registrationISRCTN11079129 ; Pre participant trial enrolment, 11/05/2015.

Indexed as

CaregiversParentingCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMental HealthQuality-Adjusted Life YearsChildhood healthCost-effectivenessE-SEE StepsIncredible yearsParenting strategiesRCT

Identifiers

PMID35739551
PMCPMC9219217

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.