Skip header and navigation

Refine By

2 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

Third-wave cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based treatment for major depressive disorder: a randomised clinical trial.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature266353
Source
BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e004903
Publication Type
Article
Date
2014
Author
Janus Christian Jakobsen
Christian Gluud
Mickey Kongerslev
Kirsten Aaskov Larsen
Per Sørensen
Per Winkel
Theis Lange
Ulf Søgaard
Erik Simonsen
Source
BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e004903
Date
2014
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Cognitive Therapy - methods
Denmark
Depressive Disorder, Major - psychology - therapy
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Theory of Mind
Treatment Outcome
Abstract
To compare the benefits and harms of third-wave cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based therapy in a small sample of depressed participants.
The trial was conducted at an outpatient psychiatric clinic for non-psychotic patients in Roskilde, Denmark.
44 consecutive adult participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder.
18 weeks of third-wave cognitive therapy (n=22) versus 18 weeks of mentalisation-based treatment (n=22).
The primary outcome was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS) at end of treatment (18 weeks). Secondary outcomes were: remission (HDRS
Notes
Cites: Sci Eng Ethics. 2000 Jan;6(1):71-711273440
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Sep;170(9):1041-5024030613
Cites: Psychopharmacol Bull. 1973 Jan;9(1):13-284682398
Cites: Br J Clin Psychol. 1984 May;23 ( Pt 2):93-96722384
Cites: J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986 Feb;54(1):54-93958302
Cites: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991 Sep;48(9):851-51929776
Cites: Stat Med. 1994 Jul 15-30;13(13-14):1341-52; discussion 1353-67973215
Cites: Int J Psychoanal. 1996 Jun;77 ( Pt 3):519-368818768
Cites: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960 Feb;23:56-6214399272
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Dec;161(12):2163-7715569884
Cites: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 Jul;63(7):757-6616818865
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;61(1):64-7518083463
Cites: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007 Dec;75(6):1000-518085916
Cites: PLoS Med. 2008 Feb;5(2):e4518303940
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;61(8):763-918411040
Cites: Behav Res Ther. 2009 May;47(5):366-7319249017
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 2009 Dec;166(12):1355-6419833787
Cites: JAMA. 2010 Mar 24;303(12):1180-720332404
Cites: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Apr;78(2):169-8320350028
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 2010 May;167(5):487-820439392
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):726-3220335313
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(6):CD00650720556767
Cites: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:9020920306
Cites: Epilepsy Behav. 2010 Nov;19(3):247-5420851055
Cites: J Affect Disord. 2011 Apr;130(1-2):138-4421093925
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e1904421556370
Cites: Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2011 Jun;79(6):330-921412690
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e2289021829664
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e2829922174786
Cites: J Affect Disord. 2012 Mar;137(1-3):4-1421501877
Cites: Psychol Med. 2012 Jul;42(7):1343-5722051174
Cites: BMJ. 2012;344:e386322705814
Cites: Psychiatry Res. 2013 Dec 15;210(2):672-423850430
Cites: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:3424588900
Cites: BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:23223253305
Cites: J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Mar;201(3):202-723407204
Cites: Ugeskr Laeger. 2003 Apr 14;165(16):1659-6212756823
PubMed ID
25138802 View in PubMed
Less detail