The International journal of eating disorders · 2017
The modeled cost-effectiveness of family-based and adolescent-focused treatment for anorexia nervosa.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Le Long Khanh-Dao, Barendregt Jan J, Hay Phillipa, Sawyer Susan M, Hughes Elizabeth K, Mihalopoulos Cathrine
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a prevalent, serious mental disorder. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of family-based treatment (FBT) compared to adolescent-focused individual therapy (AFT) or no intervention within the Australian healthcare system.
METHOD: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost and disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted of FBT relative to comparators over 6 years from the health system perspective. The target population was 11-18 year olds with AN of relatively short duration. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model assumptions. Results are reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in 2013 Australian dollars per DALY averted.
RESULTS: FBT was less costly than AFT. Relative to no intervention, the mean ICER of FBT and AFT was $5,089 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): dominant to $16,659) and $51,897 ($21,591 to $1,712,491) per DALY averted. FBT and AFT are 100% and 45% likely to be cost-effective, respectively, at a threshold of AUD$50,000 per DALY averted. Sensitivity analyses indicated that excluding hospital costs led to increases in the ICERs but the conclusion of the study did not change.
CONCLUSION: FBT is the most cost-effective among treatment arms, whereas AFT was not cost-effective compared to no intervention. Further research is required to verify this result.
METHOD: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost and disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted of FBT relative to comparators over 6 years from the health system perspective. The target population was 11-18 year olds with AN of relatively short duration. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model assumptions. Results are reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in 2013 Australian dollars per DALY averted.
RESULTS: FBT was less costly than AFT. Relative to no intervention, the mean ICER of FBT and AFT was $5,089 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): dominant to $16,659) and $51,897 ($21,591 to $1,712,491) per DALY averted. FBT and AFT are 100% and 45% likely to be cost-effective, respectively, at a threshold of AUD$50,000 per DALY averted. Sensitivity analyses indicated that excluding hospital costs led to increases in the ICERs but the conclusion of the study did not change.
CONCLUSION: FBT is the most cost-effective among treatment arms, whereas AFT was not cost-effective compared to no intervention. Further research is required to verify this result.