ArticleJAMA network open2025
Cost Utility of Intensive Home Treatment Compared With Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Admission.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assertive community treatment for adults with complex mental illness and emergency department use: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Cost Burden, Readmission Dynamics, and Service Management in Psychiatric Care: A Financial Performance Analysis in a Romanian Public Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Intensive home treatment compared to inpatient psychiatric treatment: a 36-month follow-up of a propensity-score matched retrospective multicenter cohort study.BMC psychiatry · 2026Observational
- Exploring the role of carers in psychiatric home treatment: qualitative multi-method study.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Cost-utility analysis of home treatment versus inpatient treatment in child and adolescent psychiatry: a decision analysis.Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Intensive home treatment (IHT) is regarded as a safe and effective alternative to psychiatric inpatient care during acute crises. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing IHT in comparison with inpatient treatment for persons with severe mental illness in acute crisis in the German health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This health economic evaluation was performed as part of a quasiexperimental nonrandomized trial conducted at 10 sites in Germany from January 2021 to December 2022. It included 200 patients with severe mental illness treated by IHT for acute crisis matched by means of propensity scores with 200 patients with severe mental illness receiving inpatient treatment. Participants were observed for 12 months. All analyses were conducted from January 15 to October 30, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated for 12 months from the societal perspective and from the payer perspective of German statutory health insurance. ICUR uncertainty was estimated by nonparametric bootstrapping and estimated cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for maximum willingness to pay (MWTP) thresholds of €25 000 and €50 000. Results: The mean (SD) age of all 400 eligible study participants was 45 (16) years, and 264 (66%) were female. Overall, 374 were considered in the analysis. The ICUR point estimates were €48 786.43 from the perspective of statutory health insurance and €38 433.81 from the societal perspective. Acceptability rates for IHT being a cost-effective alternative compared with inpatient treatment from the societal perspective were 67% at an MWTP threshold of €25 000 and 50% at an MWTP of €50 000 and were 60% at an MWTP of €25 000 and 44% at an MWTP of €50 000 from the perspective of the statutory health insurance. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic analysis found that IHT for persons with severe mental illness in acute crisis is expected to be cost-effective compared with inpatient treatment, with a slightly higher acceptability probability for statutory health insurance than for the economy as a whole. Due to the high stochastic uncertainty, the study results suggest that more research is needed to assess the economic efficiency of IHT more clearly.
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.