Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40423967›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Cost Utility of Intensive Home Treatment Compared With Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Admission.

Tamara Waldmann, Andreas Bechdolf, Konstantinos Nikolaidis, Sebastian von Peter, Gerhard Längle, Peter Brieger, Jürgen Timm, Lasse Fischer, Svenja Raschmann, Julian Schwarz and 8 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

18 authors.

Tamara WaldmannSection of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy II, Ulm University at Bezirkskrankenhaus Günzburg, Günzburg, Germany.
Andreas BechdolfDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics incorporating FRITZ am Urban and soulspace, Vivantes Hospital am Urban and Vivantes Hospital im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany.
Konstantinos NikolaidisDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics incorporating FRITZ am Urban and soulspace, Vivantes Hospital am Urban and Vivantes Hospital im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany.
Sebastian von PeterFaculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical University Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany.
Gerhard LängleCenter for Psychiatry South Württemberg, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Zwiefalten, Zwiefalten, Germany.
Peter Briegerkbo-Isar-Amper Hospital Munich Region, Academic Teaching Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Haar near Munich, Germany.
Jürgen TimmCompetence Center for Clinical Studies Bremen, Biometrics Department, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Lasse FischerCompetence Center for Clinical Studies Bremen, Biometrics Department, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Svenja RaschmannCenter for Psychiatry South Württemberg, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Zwiefalten, Zwiefalten, Germany.
Julian SchwarzFaculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical University Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany.
Martin HolzkeCenter for Psychiatry South Württemberg, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy I, University of Ulm, Weissenau, Germany.
Sandeep RoutDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, Vivantes Neukölln Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
Constance HirschmeierDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Johannes HamannMainkofen District Hospital, Deggendorf, Germany.
Uwe HerwigReichenau Center for Psychiatry, Academic Teaching Hospital University of Konstanz, Reichenau, Germany.
Johanna BaumgardtScientific Institute of the AOK (WIdO), Berlin, Germany.
Stefan WeinmannUniversity Psychiatric Clinics (UPK) Basel, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Reinhold KilianSection of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy II, Ulm University at Bezirkskrankenhaus Günzburg, Günzburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHome Care ServicesHospitalizationMental DisordersAdultFemaleGermanyHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID40423967
PMCPMC12117458

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.