Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMorriss, Richard K.
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-24T14:52:45Z
dc.date.available2017-08-24T14:52:45Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationCamacho, E. M., Ntais, D., Jones, S., Riste, L., Morriss, R. K., Lobban, F. & Davies, L. M. (2017). Cost-effectiveness of structured group psychoeducation versus unstructured group support for bipolar disorder: Results from a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 211, pp.27-36.
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.005
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/12217
dc.descriptionArticle as accepted for publication in Journal of Affective Disorders published by Elsevier available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.005
dc.description© 2017. This manuscript is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder (BD) costs the English economy an estimated pound5.2billion/year, largely through incomplete recovery. This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of group psychoeducation (PEd), versus group peer support (PS), for treating BD. METHODS: A 96-week pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT), conducted in NHS primary care. The primary analysis compared PEd with PS, using multiple imputed datasets for missing values. An economic model was used to compare PEd with treatment as usual (TAU). The perspective was Health and Personal Social Services. RESULTS: Participants receiving PEd (n=153) used more (costly) health-related resources than PS (n=151) (net cost per person pound1098 (95% CI, pound252- pound1943)), with a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.023 (95% CI, 0.001-0.056). The cost per QALY gained was pound47,739. PEd may be cost-effective (versus PS) if decision makers are willing to pay at least pound37,500 per QALY gained. PEd costs pound10,765 more than PS to avoid one relapse. The economic model indicates that PEd may be cost-effective versus TAU if it reduces the probability of relapse (by 15%) or reduces the probability of and increases time to relapse (by 10%). LIMITATIONS: Participants were generally inconsistent in attending treatment sessions and low numbers had complete cost/QALY data. Factors contributing to pervasive uncertainty of the results are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first economic evaluation of PEd versus PS in a pragmatic trial. PEd is associated with a modest improvement in health status and higher costs than PS. There is a high level of uncertainty in the data and results.
dc.description.urihttp://www.jad-journal.com/article/S0165-0327(16)31827-4/abstract
dc.formatFull text uploaded
dc.subjectBipolar disorder
dc.subjectCosts and cost analysis
dc.titleCost-effectiveness of structured group psychoeducation versus unstructured group support for bipolar disorder: Results from a multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial
dc.typeArticle
refterms.dateFOA2021-06-16T10:39:42Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Camcho 2017 27-36.pdf
Size:
963.6Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
As accepted for publication

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record