Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41498291›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2026

Cost-effectiveness of a victim improvement package: randomised controlled trial for reduction of continued symptoms of depression or anxiety in older victims of community crime.

Monica Panca, Marc Serfaty, Jessica Satchell, Rachael Maree Hunter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Monica PancaComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, https://ror.org/02jx3x895University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4031-6478
Marc SerfatyDepartment of Epidemiology and Applied Clinical Research, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8388-0776
Jessica SatchellDepartment of Epidemiology and Applied Clinical Research, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Rachael Maree HunterPriment Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7447-8934

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCrime has significant impact on older victims. High rates of anxiety and depression may be associated with crimes.

aimsThis paper aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a victim improvement package (VIP) for the reduction of continued symptoms of depression or anxiety in older victims of community crime, from the societal perspective, in a three-step, parallel-group, single-blind randomised controlled trial.

methodParticipants (

resultsThe mean cost of the VIP intervention was estimated at £1330 per participant in the intervention arm. The mean difference in costs between the VIP and TAU arms over the 6-month trial duration was -£881 (95% CI: -£5947 to £4186). The mean difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was -0.011 (95% CI: -0.042 to 0.020).

conclusionsThe addition of VIP to TAU for older victims of community crime generated a lower mean point estimate for costs, and failed to improve quality of life compared with TAU alone. While this places VIP in the south-west quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, the magnitude and significance of the QALY difference do not justify declaring VIP cost-effective or TAU not cost-effective. Future research is needed to identify the most cost-effective intervention.

Indexed as

anxietyCommunity crimecost-utilitydepressionolder victims

Identifiers

PMID41498291
PMCPMC12835716

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.