ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness of short-term parent-infant-psychotherapy, results from two randomized controlled trials.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaternal sensitivity is a crucial factor in fostering infants' resilience and healthy development. Parent-Infant Psychotherapy (PIP) interventions focus on the improvement of maternal or paternal sensitivity, among other outcomes. Little is known about their cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a short-term PIP compared to care as usual (CAU) in Germany.
methodsCost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the SKKIPPI project, which investigated the efficacy of a six-week PIP program compared to CAU. PIP aimed to support the establishment and maintenance of healthy parent-infant relationships. The first RCT (RCT-M) focused on mothers with postpartum mental disorders and their infants, while the second (RCT-I) examined children aged 0-36 months with regulatory problems and their mothers. Maternal sensitivity was assessed using the sensitivity subscale of the Emotional Availability Scale (EAS) at baseline, six weeks (primary endpoint), and twelve months, with scores ranging from 1 to 7 (Likert Scale) and higher values showing better sensitivity. Group differences were evaluated using ANCOVAs, adjusted for baseline values and treatment settings (inpatient/outpatient). Health care resource utilization was self-reported via questionnaires at baseline and after twelve months. Costs were estimated using standardized unit costs, and gamma-distributed generalized linear models with log link functions were applied to evaluate cost differences between groups from enrollment to twelve months from a payer's perspective. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated if applicable.
resultsBetween 2019 and 2021, 51 participants (25 PIP) of RCT-M, and 70 participants (38 PIP) of RCT-I could be included in our analyses. In RCT-M, adjusted EAS scores were slightly lower in the PIP group after twelve months (Δ -0.22, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.11), with higher adjusted costs in the PIP group (Δ €5,603). In RCT-I, the PIP group showed slightly higher adjusted EAS scores (Δ 0.12, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.36), resulting in an ICER of €29,600 per EAS unit gained. Results remained robust in sensitivity analyses.
conclusionCost-effectiveness of the evaluated PIP in improving maternal sensitivity was unlikely in both trials. Future research could focus on mothers with more severe maternal sensitivity problems and alternative effectiveness measures.
trial registrationGerman Register for Clinical Trials, ID: DRKS00016353 (RCT-M) and ID: DRKS00017008 (RCT-I).
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.