The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2000
Cost-effectiveness of intensive v. standard case management for severe psychotic illness. UK700 case management trial. UK700 Group.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intensive case management is commonly advocated for the care of the severely mentally ill, but evidence of its cost-effectiveness is lacking.
AIMS: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of intensive compared with standard case management for patients with severe psychosis.
METHOD: 708 patients with psychosis and a history of repeated hospital admissions were randomly allocated to standard (case-loads 30-35) or intensive (case-loads 10-15) case management. Clinical and resource use data were assessed over two years.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between intensive and standard case management in the total two-year costs of care per patient (means 24,550 Pounds and 22,700 Pounds, respectively, difference 1850 Pounds, 95% CI--1600 Pounds to 5300 Pounds). There was no evidence of differential effects in African-Caribbean patients or in the most disabled. Psychiatric in-patient hospital stay accounted for 47% of the total costs, but neither such hospitalisation nor other clinical outcomes differed between the randomised groups.
CONCLUSION: Reduced case-loads have no clear beneficial effect on costs, clinical outcome or cost-effectiveness. The policy of advocating intensive case management for patients with severe psychosis is not supported by these results.
AIMS: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of intensive compared with standard case management for patients with severe psychosis.
METHOD: 708 patients with psychosis and a history of repeated hospital admissions were randomly allocated to standard (case-loads 30-35) or intensive (case-loads 10-15) case management. Clinical and resource use data were assessed over two years.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between intensive and standard case management in the total two-year costs of care per patient (means 24,550 Pounds and 22,700 Pounds, respectively, difference 1850 Pounds, 95% CI--1600 Pounds to 5300 Pounds). There was no evidence of differential effects in African-Caribbean patients or in the most disabled. Psychiatric in-patient hospital stay accounted for 47% of the total costs, but neither such hospitalisation nor other clinical outcomes differed between the randomised groups.
CONCLUSION: Reduced case-loads have no clear beneficial effect on costs, clinical outcome or cost-effectiveness. The policy of advocating intensive case management for patients with severe psychosis is not supported by these results.