Journal of affective disorders · 2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis of a model of integrated mental health video consultations (PROVIDE-C randomised controlled trial) for people with depression and anxiety.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vomhof Markus, van Eickels Deborah, Tönnies Justus, Wildenauer Alina, Feißt Manuel, Wensing Michel, Szecsenyi Joachim, Hartmann Mechthild, Friederich Hans-Christoph, Brunoni Cecilia, Icks Andrea, Haun Markus W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROVIDE-C randomised controlled trial which analysed the effectiveness of a model of integrated mental health video consultations for people with depression and anxiety in primary care in Germany in comparison to treatment as usual (TAU).
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed six and twelve months after baseline from a societal perspective. Bootstrap procedure was applied and for each bootstrap replication, multiple imputation was conducted, and incremental costs and effects were estimated using generalised linear models.
RESULTS: In total 376 participants (18 to 81 years) with depression and/or anxiety were included in the analysis. We found that €3662 would be required for an additional person who experienced a clinically minimum important reduction of 5 points at the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) and €1622 would be required for an additional person with a PHQ-ADS score below 10 points (persons with not more than mild symptom severity) six months after baseline. At twelve months after baseline, PROVIDE-C was dominant compared to TAU. While 6 months after baseline the probability of cost-effectiveness was approximately 36%, 40% and 56% in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for the respective willingness-to-pay threshold of €0, €20,000, and €100,000, at 12 months after baseline the respective probabilities of cost-effectiveness increased to approximately 71%, 78%, and 86%.
CONCLUSIONS: While the PROVIDE-C intervention is less likely cost-effective 6 months after baseline, it was likely cost-effective 12 months after baseline.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed six and twelve months after baseline from a societal perspective. Bootstrap procedure was applied and for each bootstrap replication, multiple imputation was conducted, and incremental costs and effects were estimated using generalised linear models.
RESULTS: In total 376 participants (18 to 81 years) with depression and/or anxiety were included in the analysis. We found that €3662 would be required for an additional person who experienced a clinically minimum important reduction of 5 points at the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) and €1622 would be required for an additional person with a PHQ-ADS score below 10 points (persons with not more than mild symptom severity) six months after baseline. At twelve months after baseline, PROVIDE-C was dominant compared to TAU. While 6 months after baseline the probability of cost-effectiveness was approximately 36%, 40% and 56% in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for the respective willingness-to-pay threshold of €0, €20,000, and €100,000, at 12 months after baseline the respective probabilities of cost-effectiveness increased to approximately 71%, 78%, and 86%.
CONCLUSIONS: While the PROVIDE-C intervention is less likely cost-effective 6 months after baseline, it was likely cost-effective 12 months after baseline.