Skip header and navigation

Refine By

1 records – page 1 of 1.

Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in first-episode psychosis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study).

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature118731
Source
Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;202(1):35-41
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jan-2013
Author
Lene Halling Hastrup
Christian Kronborg
Mette Bertelsen
Pia Jeppesen
Per Jorgensen
Lone Petersen
Anne Thorup
Erik Simonsen
Merete Nordentoft
Author Affiliation
Region Zealand, Psychiatric Research Unit, Roskilde, Denmark. lhhs@regionsjaelland.dk
Source
Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;202(1):35-41
Date
Jan-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Antipsychotic Agents - therapeutic use
Community Mental Health Services - economics - organization & administration
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Denmark
Diagnosis-Related Groups - economics
Early Medical Intervention - economics
Family Therapy - economics
Health Care Costs - statistics & numerical data
Health Services - utilization
Humans
Intention to Treat Analysis
Middle Aged
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care)
Patient Care Team - economics
Patient Education as Topic - economics
Psychotic Disorders - economics - therapy
Schizophrenia - economics - therapy
Single-Blind Method
Socialization
Young Adult
Abstract
Information about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment.
An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken.
The mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123,683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148,751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50,000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%.
The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.
PubMed ID
23174515 View in PubMed
Less detail