Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative care intervention for major depressive disorder in an occupational healthcare setting

M. Goorden, M.C. Vlasveld, J.R. Anema, W. van Mechelen, A.T.F. Beekman, C.M. van der Feltz-Cornelis, L. Hakkaart-van Roijen, R. Hoedeman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose
Major depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken.
Methods
In this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life.
Results
The average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were €3,874 (95 % CI €2,778–€5,718) compared to €4,583 (95 % CI €3,108–€6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY’s) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 %) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result.
Conclusions
The cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention.
Keywords: Costs and cost analysis, Occupational health, Depressive disorder, Mental health services, Randomized controlled trial
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)555-562
JournalJournal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Volume24
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Major Depressive Disorder
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Delivery of Health Care
Mental Health Services
Occupational Health
Depression

Cite this

Goorden, M. ; Vlasveld, M.C. ; Anema, J.R. ; van Mechelen, W. ; Beekman, A.T.F. ; van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M. ; Hakkaart-van Roijen, L. ; Hoedeman, R. / Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative care intervention for major depressive disorder in an occupational healthcare setting. In: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2014 ; Vol. 24, No. 3. pp. 555-562.
@article{60f5bc52b6734ba0a76cc0598c3d75e4,
title = "Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative care intervention for major depressive disorder in an occupational healthcare setting",
abstract = "Purpose Major depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life. Results The average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were €3,874 (95 {\%} CI €2,778–€5,718) compared to €4,583 (95 {\%} CI €3,108–€6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY’s) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 {\%}) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result. Conclusions The cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention.Keywords: Costs and cost analysis, Occupational health, Depressive disorder, Mental health services, Randomized controlled trial",
author = "M. Goorden and M.C. Vlasveld and J.R. Anema and {van Mechelen}, W. and A.T.F. Beekman and {van der Feltz-Cornelis}, C.M. and {Hakkaart-van Roijen}, L. and R. Hoedeman",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1007/s10926-013-9483-4",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "555--562",
journal = "Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation",
issn = "1053-0487",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative care intervention for major depressive disorder in an occupational healthcare setting. / Goorden, M.; Vlasveld, M.C.; Anema, J.R.; van Mechelen, W.; Beekman, A.T.F.; van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M.; Hakkaart-van Roijen, L.; Hoedeman, R.

In: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2014, p. 555-562.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-utility analysis of a collaborative care intervention for major depressive disorder in an occupational healthcare setting

AU - Goorden, M.

AU - Vlasveld, M.C.

AU - Anema, J.R.

AU - van Mechelen, W.

AU - Beekman, A.T.F.

AU - van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M.

AU - Hakkaart-van Roijen, L.

AU - Hoedeman, R.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Purpose Major depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life. Results The average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were €3,874 (95 % CI €2,778–€5,718) compared to €4,583 (95 % CI €3,108–€6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY’s) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 %) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result. Conclusions The cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention.Keywords: Costs and cost analysis, Occupational health, Depressive disorder, Mental health services, Randomized controlled trial

AB - Purpose Major depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life. Results The average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were €3,874 (95 % CI €2,778–€5,718) compared to €4,583 (95 % CI €3,108–€6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY’s) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 %) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result. Conclusions The cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention.Keywords: Costs and cost analysis, Occupational health, Depressive disorder, Mental health services, Randomized controlled trial

U2 - 10.1007/s10926-013-9483-4

DO - 10.1007/s10926-013-9483-4

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 555

EP - 562

JO - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

JF - Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

SN - 1053-0487

IS - 3

ER -