Trial reportEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2022
Cost-effectiveness of implementing a digital psychosocial intervention for patients with psychotic spectrum disorders in low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Europe: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised trial.
Trial report in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of community versus hospital-based mental healthcare for severe mental illness in South-East Europe: economic evaluation of five randomised trials.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDIALOG+ is a digital psychosocial intervention aimed at making routine meetings between patients and clinicians therapeutically effective. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing DIALOG+ treatment for patients with psychotic disorders in five low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Europe alongside a cluster randomised trial.
methodsResource use and quality of life data were collected alongside the multi-country cluster randomised trial of 468 participants with psychotic disorders. Due to COVID-19 interruptions of the trial's original 12-month intervention period, adjusted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated at the participant level using a mixed-effects model over the first 6 months only. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with uncertainty presented using a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Seven sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the findings.
resultsThe average cost of delivering DIALOG+ was €91.11 per participant. DIALOG+ was associated with an incremental health gain of 0.0032 QALYs (95% CI -0.0015, 0.0079), incremental costs of €84.17 (95% CI -8.18, 176.52), and an estimated ICER of €26,347.61. The probability of DIALOG+ being cost-effective against three times the weighted gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for the five participating countries was 18.9%.
conclusionEvidence from the cost-effectiveness analyses in this study suggested that DIALOG+ involved relatively low costs. However, it is not likely to be cost-effective in the five participating countries compared with standard care against a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times the weighted GDP per capita per QALY gained.
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.