Cost utility analysis of a collaborative stepped care intervention for panic and generalized anxiety disorders in primary care

Exploring the Stepped Care Model in Delivering Primary Mental Health Services-A Scoping Review

The stepped care model (SCM) is a patient-centred approach to mental health care, offering a range of services from least to most intensive, tailored to individual needs. This scoping review examines the adoption, effectiveness, challenges and implications associated with applying SCM within primary mental health service delivery. Evidence from global sources suggests the model is viable, effective and useful. This review explores the literature available, clarifies fundamental concepts and identifies existing knowledge gaps. The literature search included CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, the Federation University library, Google and Google Scholar databases. A systematic keyword-based search using terms like "stepped care model," "mental health," and "primary care"; and a combination of keywords and subject headings, were used. The search strategy was refined by considering factors such as relevance, publication date, objectives and outcomes. This strategy yielded 20 papers compiled in this review. They include randomised controlled trials and cross-sectional studies. The review supports SCM adoption in primary mental health care but acknowledges the need for further research. Key inclusions of the review include cost-effectiveness, diverse diagnoses, efficacy and the model's structural configuration. Clear treatment details, delivery methods, intervention durations and chronological sequences are essential. This systematic approach enhances generalisability across different SCM models and areas, strengthening reliable inferences. In summary, the SCM holds promise for enhancing mental health service delivery. However, there is a need to further examine the factors that determine its effectiveness and understand the different ways in which SCM is implemented. Such inquiry forms the foundation for implementing and advancing mental health care services in Australia and internationally.

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Measuring, Analyzing, and Presenting Work Productivity Loss in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs, how each outcome was measured and analyzed, and how the results for each outcome were presented.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020 from 2 databases: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on country, study population, disease focus, sample size, work productivity loss outcomes measured (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes), and methods used to measure, report, and analyze each work productivity loss outcome were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

We found 435 studies measuring absenteeism or presenteeism, of which 155 studies (35.6%) measured both absenteeism and presenteeism and were included in our final review. Only 9 studies also measured employment status changes. The most used questionnaire was the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. The analysis of absenteeism and presenteeism data was mostly done using regression models (n = 98, n = 98, respectively) for which a normal distribution was assumed (n = 77, n = 89, respectively). Absenteeism results were most often presented in time whereas presenteeism was commonly presented using a percent scale or score.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus on how to measure, analyze, and present work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs published in the past 10 years. The diversity of measurement, analysis, and presentation methods used in RCTs may make comparability challenging. There is a need for guidelines providing recommendations to standardize the comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of methods used to measure, analyze, and report work productivity loss in RCTs.

Protocol for a multi-site randomized controlled trial of a stepped-care intervention for emergency department patients with panic-related anxiety

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% of Emergency Department (ED) patients with chest pain meet diagnostic criteria for panic-related anxiety, but only 1-2% are correctly diagnosed and appropriately managed in the ED. A stepped-care model, which focuses on providing evidence-based interventions in a resource-efficient manner, is the state-of-the art for treating panic disorder patients in medical settings such as primary care. Stepped-care has yet to be tested in the ED setting, which is the first point of contact with the healthcare system for most patients with panic symptoms.

METHODS

This multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to evaluate the clinical, patient-centred, and economic effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention in a sample of 212 patients with panic-related anxiety presenting to the ED of Singapore's largest public healthcare group. Participants will be randomly assigned to either: 1) an enhanced care arm consisting of a stepped-care intervention for panic-related anxiety; or 2) a control arm consisting of screening for panic attacks and panic disorder. Screening will be followed by baseline assessments and blocked randomization in a 1:1 ratio. Masked follow-up assessments will be conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Clinical outcomes will be panic symptom severity and rates of panic disorder. Patient-centred outcomes will be health-related quality of life, daily functioning, psychiatric comorbidity, and health services utilization. Economic effectiveness outcomes will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the stepped-care intervention relative to screening alone.

DISCUSSION

This trial will examine the impact of early intervention for patients with panic-related anxiety in the ED setting. The results will be used to propose a clinically-meaningful and cost-effective model of care for ED patients with panic-related anxiety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03632356. Retrospectively registered 15 August 2018.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stepped Care Psychological Prevention and Treatment Approaches for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Stepped care approaches have been developed to increase treatment accessibility for individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, despite guidelines recommending stepped care, it is currently unclear how the approach compares to other treatments for PTSD in terms of symptom reduction, cost, and client-rated acceptability. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled and open trials evaluating stepped care prevention (i.e., targeting those with recent trauma exposure at risk of developing PTSD) and treatment approaches for adults and adolescents/children with PTSD. Eight prevention and four treatment studies were included. There was considerable variation in the sample types, stepped approaches, and control conditions. Most studies found no significant differences between stepped care (both prevention and treatment) and control (active and usual care) in terms of PTSD severity, loss of PTSD diagnosis, depression severity, and quality of life at the final follow-up. There was some evidence to suggest that stepped care was more cost-effective, and as acceptable or more acceptable compared to controls. Interpretations were tempered by high statistical heterogeneity, risk of bias, and lack of recommended evidence-based treatments. Stepped care can make PTSD treatment more accessible; however, more high-quality research is needed comparing stepped care to active controls.

Clinical efficacy of a Decision Support Tool (Link-me) to guide intensity of mental health care in primary practice: a pragmatic stratified randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The volume and heterogeneity of mental health problems that primary care patients present with is a substantial challenge for health systems, and both undertreatment and overtreatment are common. We developed Link-me, a patient-completed Decision Support Tool, to predict severity of depression or anxiety, identify priorities, and recommend interventions. In this study, we aimed to examine if Link-me reduces psychological distress among individuals predicted to have minimal/mild or severe symptoms of anxiety or depression.

METHODS

In this pragmatic stratified randomised controlled trial, adults aged 18-75 years reporting depressive or anxiety symptoms or use of mental health medication were recruited from 23 general practices in Australia. Participants completed the Decision Support Tool and were classified into three prognostic groups (minimal/mild, moderate, severe), and those in the minimal/mild and severe groups were eligible for inclusion. Participants were individually and randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either prognosis-matched care (intervention group) or usual care plus attention control (control group). Participants were not blinded but intervention providers were only notified of those allocated to the intervention group. Outcome assessment was blinded. The primary outcome was the difference in the change in scores between the intervention and control group, and within prognostic groups, on the 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale at 6 months post randomisation. The trial was registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001333303.

OUTCOMES

Between Nov 21, 2017, and Oct 31, 2018, 24 616 patients were invited to complete the eligibility screening survey. 1671 of these patients were included and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=834) or the control group (n=837). Prognosis-matched care was associated with greater reductions in psychological distress than usual care plus attention control at 6 months (p=0·03), with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0·09 (95% CI -0·17 to -0·01). This reduction was also seen in the severe prognostic group (p=0·003), with a SMD of -0·26 (-0·43 to -0·09), but not in the minimal/mild group (p=0·73), with a SMD of 0·04 (-0·17 to 0·24). In the complier average causal effect analysis in the severe prognostic group, differences were larger among those who received some or all aspects of the intervention (SMD range -0·58 to -1·15). No serious adverse effects were recorded.

INTERPRETATION

Prognosis-based matching of interventions reduces psychological distress in patients with anxiety or depressive symptoms, particularly in those with severe symptoms, and is associated with better outcomes when patients access the recommended treatment. Optimisation of the Link-me approach and implementation into routine practice could help reduce the burden of disease associated with common mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression.

FUNDING

Australian Government Department of Health.

Does symptom severity matter in stepped and collaborative care for depression?

BACKGROUND

We investigated the differential effectiveness of a stepped and collaborative care model (SCM) vs. treatment as usual (TAU) for primary care patients with various depression severity degrees and explored whether subgroups received distinct evidence-based treatments.

METHODS

Subgroup analyses of a RCT were calculated applying a multiple linear mixed model with the factors 1. group (SCM; TAU), 2. severity ((mild-moderate (MMD); severe depression (SD)) and their interaction, with PHQ-9 as primary outcome. Utilization of treatments was analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

For the 737 participating patients (SCM: n = 569; TAU: n = 168), availability of data substantially varies between subgroups at 12-month follow-up ranging between 37% and 70%. ITT-analysis (Last-observation-carried-forward) revealed a significant interaction for group x severity [p = 0.036] and a significant difference between groups in symptom reduction for MMD (-3.9; [95% CI: -5.1 to -2.6, p < 0.001; d = 0.64] but not for SD (-1.6; [95% CI: -3.4 to 0.2, p = 0.093; d = 0.27]. Sensitivity analyses (multiple imputation, completer analysis, pattern mixture model) didn`t confirm the interaction effect and showed significant effects for both severity groups with slightly higher effect sizes for MMD. Differences between SCM and TAU in the percentage of patients utilizing depression-specific treatments are larger for MMD.

LIMITATIONS

There was a high proportion of missing values among severely depressed patients, especially in SCM.

CONCLUSION

SCM is effective for both MMD and SD. Utilization patterns might help explain the higher effects for MMD. Various strategies of replacement of missing values lead to slightly divergent results due to selective drop out between severity groups.

Descriptive Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Counseling and Coordination Model in Psychosocial Care. Integration of Health Care and Social Rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

A psychosocial outreach clinic was established to offer counseling and coordination of healthcare and complementary services for persons with psychosocial and mental problems. The cost-effectiveness of these services was measured based on a pre-post comparison.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted with clients of the outreach clinic. Data on resource consumption and quality of life were collected at baseline and follow-up after 3, 6, and 12 months using the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory to assess service utilization, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey to assess quality of life. The objective of the present analysis was to estimate the relation between monetary expenditure and QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years), before and after the outreach clinic was established, descriptively. The analysis was constructed from payer's perspective and was supplemented by a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 85 participants were included. Total annual expenditures before the intervention were 5,832 € per client for all service segments. During the 12-months study duration expenditures decreased to 4,350 € including the costs associated with outreach clinic services. QALYs for the 12-month study period were 0.6618 and increased about 0.0568 compared to the period before.

DISCUSSION

Despite methodological limitations due to small sample size, a pre-post comparison and the retrospective cost data collection, this study suggests acceptability of the outreach clinic as cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The activities of the outreach clinic as an integrated care model seem to be cost-effective regarding the relation between monetary expenditures and clients' quality of life.

Study protocol for the COMET study: a cluster-randomised, prospective, parallel-group, superiority trial to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative and stepped care model versus treatment as usual in patients with mental disorders in primary care

INTRODUCTION

Mental healthcare is one of the biggest challenges for healthcare systems. Comorbidities between different mental disorders are common, and patients suffer from a high burden of disease. While the effectiveness of collaborative and stepped care models has been shown for single disorders, comorbid mental disorders have rarely been addressed in such care models. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a collaborative and stepped care model for depressive, anxiety, somatoform and alcohol use disorders within a multiprofessional network compared with treatment as usual.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a cluster-randomised, prospective, parallel-group superiority trial, n=570 patients will be recruited from primary care practices (n=19 practices per group). The intervention is a newly developed collaborative and stepped care model in which patients will be treated using treatment options of various intensities within an integrated network of outpatient general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychotherapists and inpatient institutions. It will be compared with treatment as usual with regard to effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility, with the primary outcome being a change in mental health-related quality of life from baseline to 6 months. Patients in both groups will undergo an assessment at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after study inclusion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the ethics committee of the Hamburg Medical Association (No. PV5595) and will be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. For dissemination, the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. Within the superordinate research project Hamburg Network for Health Services Research, the results will be communicated to relevant stakeholders in mental healthcare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03226743.

The cost-effectiveness of stepped care for the treatment of anxiety disorders in adults: A model-based economic analysis for the Australian setting

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of stepped care compared to care as usual (CAU) for the treatment of adults with mild-to-moderate anxiety disorders from a health sector perspective in the Australian setting.

METHOD

A decision tree model was constructed to estimate the cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted over a 12-month time horizon. The model compared a three-step stepped care intervention to CAU. Stepped care included an initial phase of guided self-help, followed by face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy, and pharmacotherapy as the final step. The model adopted a health sector perspective, used epidemiological parameters and disability weights obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Effect sizes were derived from a randomized trial of stepped care and a longitudinal cohort study. Costs were expressed in 2013 Australian dollars (A$). Multivariate probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Stepped care was found to be cost-effective compared to CAU with an incremental cost-effective ratio of A$3093 per DALY averted. One-hundred percent of the uncertainty iterations fell below the A$50,000 per DALY averted willingness-to-pay threshold commonly used in Australia. The evaluation was most sensitive to changes in diagnosis rates and effect sizes.

CONCLUSION

A three-step model of stepped care appears to be cost-effective for the treatment of adults with mild to moderate anxiety disorders from the Australian health sector perspective. These results can provide some assurance to decision-makers that stepped care represents an efficient use of health care resources.

Economic evaluation of stepped care for the management of childhood anxiety disorders: Results from a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Stepped care has been promoted for the management of mental disorders; however, there is no empirical evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of this approach for the treatment of anxiety disorders in youth.

METHOD

This economic evaluation was conducted within a randomised controlled trial comparing stepped care to a validated, manualised treatment in 281 young people, aged 7-17, with a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Intervention costs were determined from therapist records. Administrative data on medication and medical service use were used to determine additional health care costs during the study period. Parents also completed a resource use questionnaire to collect medications, services not captured in administrative data and parental lost productivity. Outcomes included participant-completed quality of life, Child Health Utility - nine-dimension and parent-completed Assessment of Quality of Life - eight-dimension to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years were compared between groups at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Intervention delivery costs were significantly less for stepped care from the societal perspective (mean difference -$198, 95% confidence interval -$353 to -$19). Total combined costs were less for stepped care from both societal (-$1334, 95% confidence interval -$2386 to $510) and health sector (-$563, 95% confidence interval -$1353 to $643) perspectives but did not differ significantly from the manualised treatment. Youth and parental quality-adjusted life years were not significantly different between groups. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust.

CONCLUSION

For youth with anxiety, this three-step model provided comparable outcomes and total health sector costs to a validated face-to-face programme. However, it was less costly to deliver from a societal perspective, making it an attractive option for some parents. Future economic evaluations comparing various models of stepped care to treatment as usual are recommended.

Economic Evaluations of Stepped Models of Care for Depression and Anxiety and Associated Implementation Strategies: A Review of Empiric Studies

Since the mid-2000s stepped care, a model of integrated healthcare delivery, has been promoted for offering accessible, effective and efficient services for individuals with mental health conditions. However, adoption of the model has not been widespread warranting additional investment by way of implementation strategies to encourage uptake. These strategies also require funding and their value for money should be assessed to inform decision making and practice. We conducted a review to better understand the extent to which the cost-effectiveness of stepped care has been evaluated (review i) and also to investigate whether economic evaluation has been applied to implementation strategies of stepped care services for anxiety and depression in developed (high income) countries and to chart their methods and outcomes (review ii). The searches were conducted in six electronic databases, grey literature and relevant journals. The search strategies returned two papers for reviews (i) and a single paper for review (ii). Despite stepped care models of integrated mental health service provision being promoted as optimal, there is limited knowledge surrounding the real-world cost-effectiveness of their application and clearly a need for good quality economic evaluations of integrated care that comply with international guidelines of good practice. There is even less information pertaining to the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of strategies designed to increase the uptake of these models.

[Clinical trial of a stepped and collaborative care model for mental illnesses and comorbidities in the Hamburg Network for Health Services Research]

Healthcare for mental disorders is a big challenge for the German healthcare system. In cases of comorbid mental diseases, patients suffer from an especially high burden of disease. So far, innovative care models for collaborative and stepped care have only been investigated with respect to their effectiveness for single mental disorders.The project "Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers" (COMET), which is being carried out by the Hamburg Network for Health Services Research (HAM-NET) from 2017 until 2020, examines an innovative, guideline-based healthcare model for the improvement of healthcare for patients with mental illnesses and their potential comorbidities. In this article this new stepped and collaborative care model for patients in primary care that integrates general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and hospitals is presented. For the implementation and facilitation of the model, guideline-based treatment pathways, a tablet-based computer program for screening, diagnostic and guideline-based treatment recommendations, as well as a web-based transferal platform were developed.The results of this project on the effectiveness and efficacy of the model can help determine if the model can be implemented in routine healthcare. This could represent a major step towards more integrated and cross-sectoral healthcare for patients with mental illnesses.

Psychological Support for Personality (PSP) versus treatment as usual: study protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial of a low intensity intervention for people with personality disorder

Background

Previous research has demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of long-term psychological treatment for people with some types of personality disorder. However, the high intensity and cost of these interventions limit their availability. Lower-intensity interventions are increasingly being offered to people with personality disorder, but their clinical and cost effectiveness have not been properly tested in experimental studies. We therefore set out to develop a low intensity intervention for people with personality disorder and to test the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to compare the clinical effectiveness of this intervention with that of treatment as usual (TAU).

Methods

A two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial of Psychological Support for Personality (PSP) versus TAU for people aged over 18 years, who are using secondary care mental health services and have personality disorder. We will exclude people with co-existing organic or psychotic mental disorders (dementia, bipolar affective disorder, delusional disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizotypal disorder), those with cognitive or language difficulties that would preclude them from providing informed consent or compromise participation in study procedures, and those who are already receiving psychological treatment for personality disorder. Participants will be randomized via a remote system in a ratio of PSP to TAU of 1:1. Randomization will be stratified according to the referring team and gender of the participant.

A single follow-up assessment will be conducted by masked researchers 24 weeks after randomization to assess mental health (using the Warwick and Edinburgh Well-Being Schedule), social functioning (using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L), incidence of suicidal behavior, satisfaction with care (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), and resource use and costs using a modified version of the Adult Service Use Schedule. In addition to this, each participant will be asked to complete the patient version of the Clinical Global Impression Scale.

Feasibility and acceptability will primarily be judged by study recruitment rate and engagement and retention in treatment. The analysis will focus principally on descriptive data on the rate of recruitment, characteristics of participants, attrition, adherence to therapy, and follow-up. We will explore the distribution of study outcomes to investigate assumptions of normality in order to plan the analysis and sample size of a future definitive trial.

Discussion

Most people with personality disorder do not currently receive evidence-based interventions. While a number of high intensity psychological treatments have been shown to be effective, there is an urgent need to develop effective low intensity approaches to help people unable to use existing treatments. PSP is a low intensity intervention for individuals, which was developed following extensive consultation with users and providers of services for people with personality disorder. This study aims to examine the feasibility of a randomized trial of PSP compared to TAU for people with personality disorder.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN14994755. Registered on 18 July 2017.

Guideline-based stepped and collaborative care for patients with depression in a cluster-randomised trial

Guidelines recommend stepped and collaborative care models (SCM) for depression. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex guideline-based SCM for depressed patients. German primary care units were cluster-randomised into intervention (IG) or control group (CG) (3:1 ratio). Adult routine care patients with PHQ-9 ≥ 5 points could participate and received SCM in IG and treatment as usual (TAU) in CG. Primary outcome was change in PHQ-9 from baseline to 12 months (hypothesis: greater reduction in IG). A linear mixed model was calculated with group as fixed effect and practice as random effect, controlling for baseline PHQ-9 (intention-to-treat). 36 primary care units were randomised to IG and 13 to CG. 36 psychotherapists, 6 psychiatrists and 7 clinics participated in SCM. 737 patients were included (IG: n = 569 vs. CG: n = 168); data were available for 60% (IG) and 64% (CG) after 12 months. IG showed 2.4 points greater reduction [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.4 to -1.5, p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.45] (adjusted PHQ-9 mean change). Odds of response [odds ratio: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.6 to 4.7] and remission [odds ratio: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.58 to 6.26] were higher in IG. Guideline-based SCM can improve depression care.

Comparative Effect of Collaborative Care, Pain Medication, and Duloxetine in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder and Comorbid (Sub)Chronic Pain: Results of an Exploratory Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trial (CC:PAINDIP)

OBJECTIVE

Evidence exists for the efficacy of collaborative care (CC) for major depressive disorder (MDD), for the efficacy of the consequent use of pain medication against pain, and for the efficacy of duloxetine against both MDD and neuropathic pain. Their relative effectiveness in comorbid MDD and pain has never been established so far. This study explores the effectiveness of CC with pain medication and duloxetine, and CC with pain medication and placebo, compared with duloxetine alone, on depressive and pain symptoms. This study was prematurely terminated because of massive reorganizations and reimbursement changes in mental health care in the Netherlands during the study period and is therefore of exploratory nature.

METHODS

Three-armed, randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial at three specialized mental health outpatient clinics with patients who screened positive for MDD. Interventions lasted 12 weeks. Pain medication was administered according to an algorithm that avoids opiate prescription as much as possible, where paracetamol, COX inhibitors, and pregabalin are offered as steps before opiates are considered. Patients who did not show up for three or more sessions were registered as non-compliant. Explorative, intention-to-treat and per protocol, multilevel regression analyses were performed. The trial is listed in the trial registration (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1089; NTR number: NTR1089).

RESULTS

Sixty patients completed the study. Patients in all treatment groups reported significantly less depressive and pain symptoms after 12 weeks. CC with placebo condition showed the fastest decrease in depressive symptoms compared with the duloxetine alone group (b = -0.78; p = 0.01). Non-compliant patients (n = 31) did not improve over the 12-week period, in contrast to compliant patients (n = 29). Pain outcomes did not differ between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

In MDD and pain, patient's compliance and placebo effects are more important in attaining effect than choice of one of the treatments. Active pain management with COX inhibitors and pregabalin as alternatives to tramadol or other opiates might provide an attractive alternative to the current WHO pain ladder as it avoids opiate prescription as much as possible. The generalizability is limited due to the small sample size. Larger studies are needed.

A compensating income variation approach to valuing 34 health conditions in Iceland

Using data from an Icelandic health-and-lifestyle survey carried out in 2007, 2009, and 2012, we employ a compensating income variation (CIV) approach to estimate the monetary value sufficient to compensate individuals for the presence of various sub-optimal health conditions. This method is inexpensive and easy on subjects and has been applied to several desiderata that do not have revealed market prices. The CIV literature is, however, still limited in its application to health and thus information about its suitability is limited. With the aim of shedding light on the method́s appropriateness we thus provide a broad-view analysis including a spectrum of diseases and conditions that can be held up against more traditionally used methods. CIV for physical conditions vary greatly, but paralysis, fibromyalgia, chronic back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, urinary incontinence, severe headache and thyroid disease were among those consistently associated with substantial well-being reductions. Mental-health results using this method should be read with caution. The societal value of health interventions is multidimensional, including for example increased productivity in the population. However, one of the main positive aspects of increased health is undoubtedly the increased well-being of the treated subjects. Such quality-of-life effects should thus preferably be taken into account. For this reason, information on the value individuals place on recovery from various sub-optimal health conditions is useful when it comes to prioritizing scarce capital in the health sector. It is therefore vital to estimate the importance individuals place on various health states and hold them up against each other. Furthermore, this paper has scientific value as it sheds light on attributes of a potentially useful method in health evaluations.

Anxiety among adults with a history of childhood adversity: Psychological resilience moderates the indirect effect of emotion dysregulation

BACKGROUND

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been widely identified as risk factors for increased symptoms of anxiety across the lifespan. Little is known, however, about the processes by which ACEs set the stage for increased symptoms of anxiety in adulthood. The current study evaluated whether emotion dysregulation and psychological resilience influence the association between ACEs and symptoms of anxiety.

METHODS

A sample of adult primary care patients (N=4006) completed self-report measures related to ACEs, symptoms of anxiety, emotion dysregulation, and psychological resilience.

RESULTS

A moderated mediation analysis showed that emotion dysregulation mediated the association between ACEs and anxiety symptoms, and that the strength of this effect varied as a function of psychological resilience. Specifically, the influence of ACEs on emotional dysregulation was stronger among individuals with low levels of psychological resilience than among those with high levels of psychological resilience. These findings remained significant when controlling for a range of sociodemographic variables in the model.

LIMITATIONS

Cross-sectional designs preclude inferences about causality and self-report data may be susceptible to reporting biases. Other psychological variables that may be relevant to the current results, such as protective factors in childhood, were not assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

These results have implications for the conceptualization of ACEs, emotion dysregulation, and psychological resilience in etiological models of anxiety. They also highlight the relevance of ACEs, emotion dysregulation, and psychological resilience to the detection, treatment, and prevention of anxiety disorders.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating anxiety disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental disorders that constitute a major burden on patients and society. As a consequence, economic evaluations of the interventions have become increasingly important. However, no recent overview of these economic evaluations is currently available and the quality of the published economic evaluations has not yet been assessed. Therefore, the current study has two aims: to provide an overview of the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of interventions for anxiety disorders, and to assess the quality of the studies identified.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, NHS-EED, and the CEA registry. We included full economic evaluations on interventions for all anxiety disorders published before April 2016, with no restrictions on study populations and comparators. Preventive interventions were excluded. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness data were collected. The quality of the studies was appraised using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.

RESULTS

Forty-two out of 826 identified studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were heterogeneous and the quality was variable. Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) appeared to be cost-effective in comparison with the control conditions. Four out of five studies comparing psychological interventions with pharmacological interventions showed that psychological interventions were more cost-effective than pharmacotherapy.

LIMITATIONS

Comparability was limited by heterogeneity in terms of interventions, study design, outcome and study quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty-two studies reporting cost-effectiveness of interventions for anxiety disorders were identified. iCBT was cost-effective in comparison with the control conditions. Psychological interventions for anxiety disorders might be more cost-effective than pharmacological interventions.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

Cost-Utility of Stepped Care Targeting Psychological Distress in Patients With Head and Neck or Lung Cancer

Purpose A stepped care (SC) program in which an effective yet least resource-intensive treatment is delivered to patients first and followed, when necessary, by more resource-intensive treatments was found to be effective in improving distress levels of patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer. Information on the value of this program for its cost is now called for. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the cost-utility of the SC program compared with care-as-usual (CAU) in patients with head and neck cancer or lung cancer who have psychological distress. Patients and Methods In total, 156 patients were randomly assigned to SC or CAU. Intervention costs, direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, productivity losses, and health-related quality-of-life data during the intervention or control period and 12 months of follow-up were calculated by using Trimbos and Institute of Medical Technology Assessment Cost Questionnaire for Psychiatry, Productivity and Disease Questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimension measures and data from the hospital information system. The SC program's value for the cost was investigated by comparing mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results After imputation of missing data, mean cumulative costs were -€3,950 (95% CI, -€8,158 to -€190) lower, and mean number of QALYs was 0.116 (95% CI, 0.005 to 0.227) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. The intervention group had a probability of 96% that cumulative QALYs were higher and cumulative costs were lower than in the control group. Four additional analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of this finding, and they found that the intervention group had a probability of 84% to 98% that cumulative QALYs were higher and a probability of 91% to 99% that costs were lower than in the control group. Conclusion SC is highly likely to be cost-effective; the number of QALYs was higher and cumulative costs were lower for SC compared with CAU.

Cost-utility of an internet-based intervention with or without therapist support in comparison with a waiting list for individuals with eating disorder symptoms: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-utility of the internet-based intervention "Featback" provided with different levels of therapist support, in comparison to a waiting list.

METHOD

This economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective and was part of a randomized controlled trial in which participants (N = 354) with self-reported ED symptoms were randomized to: (1) 8 weeks of Featback, consisting of psychoeducation and a fully automated monitoring- and feedback system, (2) Featback with low-intensity (weekly) therapist support, (3) Featback with high-intensity (three times a week) therapist support, and (4) a waiting list. Participants were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and 3-month follow-up. Cost-utility acceptability curves were constructed.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the study conditions were found regarding quality-adjusted life-years (P = 0.55) and societal costs (P = 0.45), although the mean costs per participant were lowest in the Featback condition with low-intensity therapist support (€1951), followed by Featback with high-intensity therapist support (€2032), Featback without therapist support (€2102), and the waiting list (€2582). Featback seemed to be cost-effective as compared to the waiting list. No clear preference was found for Featback with or without therapist support.

DISCUSSION

A fully automated Internet-based intervention for ED symptoms with no, low-, or high-intensity therapist support represented good value for money when compared to a waiting list. This finding may have important implications for clinical practice, as both the unguided- and guided intervention could allow for more efficient care and widespread dissemination, potentially increasing the accessibility and availability of mental health care services for individuals with ED symptoms. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2016; 49:1068-1076).

A feasibility study of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individual cognitive behavioral therapy for panic disorder in a Japanese clinical setting: an uncontrolled pilot study

Background

In Japan, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for panic disorder (PD) is not well established. Therefore, a feasibility study of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CBT for PD in a Japanese clinical setting is urgently required. This was a pilot uncontrolled trial and the intervention consisted of a 16-week CBT program. The primary outcome was Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS) scores. Quality of life was assessed using the EuroQol’s EQ-5D questionnaire. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 8 weeks, and at the end of the study. Fifteen subjects completed outcome measures at all assessment points.

Results

At post-CBT, the mean reduction in PDSS scores from baseline was −6.6 (95 % CI 3.80 to −9.40, p < 0.001) with a Cohen’s d = 1.77 (95 % CI 0.88–2.55). Ten (66.7 %) participants achieved a 40 % or greater reduction in PDSS. By calculating areas under the curve for EQ-5D index changes, we estimated that patients gained a minimum of 0.102 QALYs per 1 year due to the CBT.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that individual CBT for PD may be useful in Japanese clinical settings but further randomized control trials are needed.

Trial registration: UMIN-CTR UMIN000022693 (retrospectively registered)

The efficacy and safety of multiple doses of vortioxetine for generalized anxiety disorder: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Vortioxetine is a novel antidepressant approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder by the US Food and Drug Administration in September 2013. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of different doses of vortioxetine for generalized anxiety disorder of adults.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Clinical Trials databases were searched from 2000 through 2015. The abstracts of the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association and previous reviews were searched to identify additional studies. The search was limited to individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and there was no language restriction. Four RCTs met the selection criteria. These studies included 1,843 adult patients. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The data were pooled with a random-effects or fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

The results showed that multiple doses (2.5, 5, and 10 mg/d) of vortioxetine did not significantly improve the generalized anxiety disorder symptoms compared to placebo (OR=1.16, 95% CI=0.84-1.60, Z=0.89, P=0.38; OR=1.41, 95% CI=0.82-2.41, Z=1.25, P=0.21; OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.76-1.46, Z=0.32, P=0.75, respectively). We measured the efficacy of 2.5 mg/d vortioxetine compared to 10 mg/d, and no significant differences were observed. The common adverse effects included nausea and headache. With increased dose, nausea was found to be more frequent in the vortioxetine (5 and 10 mg/d) group (OR=2.99, 95% CI=1.31-6.84, Z=2.60, P=0.009; OR=2.80, 95% CI=1.85-4.25, Z=4.85, P<0.00001, respectively), but no significant differences were observed for headache.

CONCLUSION

The results showed no significant improvement in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder for vortioxetine compared to placebo, and nausea was more frequent with higher doses. So the current evidences do not support using vortioxetine for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Few RCTs were included in our meta-analysis, and more studies are needed to verify our results in the future.

Horizon 2020 priorities in clinical mental health research: results of a consensus-based ROAMER expert survey

Within the ROAMER project, which aims to provide a Roadmap for Mental Health Research in Europe, a two-stage Delphi survey among 86 European experts was conducted in order to identify research priorities in clinical mental health research. Expert consensus existed with regard to the importance of three challenges in the field of clinical mental health research: (1) the development of new, safe and effective interventions for mental disorders; (2) understanding the mechanisms of disease in order to be able to develop such new interventions; and (3) defining outcomes (an improved set of outcomes, including alternative outcomes) to use for clinical mental health research evaluation. Proposed actions involved increasing the utilization of tailored approaches (personalized medicine), developing blended eHealth/mHealth decision aids/guidance tools that help the clinician to choose between various treatment modalities, developing specific treatments in order to better target comorbidity and (further) development of biological, psychological and psychopharmacological interventions. The experts indicated that addressing these priorities will result in increased efficacy and impact across Europe; with a high probability of success, given that Europe has important strengths, such as skilled academics and a long research history. Finally, the experts stressed the importance of creating funding and coordinated networking as essential action needed in order to target the variety of challenges in clinical mental health research.