IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i19p11985-d922024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Positive Memory Training (PoMeT) for the Treatment of Depression in Schizophrenia

Author

Listed:
  • Judit Simon

    (Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090 Wien, Austria
    Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK)

  • Noemi Kiss

    (Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090 Wien, Austria)

  • Kees Korrelboom

    (Department of Anxiety Disorders, PsyQ Parnassia Group, Psychiatric Center, Lijnbaan 4, 2512 VA The Hague, The Netherlands
    Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands)

  • David Kingdon

    (Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK)

  • Til Wykes

    (Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London SE5 8AF, UK
    South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE5 8AZ, UK)

  • Peter Phiri

    (Department of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
    Research & Innovation Department, Tom Rudd Unit, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust Moorgreen Hospital, Botley Rd, West End, Southampton SO30 3JB, UK)

  • Mark van der Gaag

    (Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University and Amsterdam Public Mental Health Research Institute, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, Zoutkeetsingel 40, 2512 HN The Hague, The Netherlands)

  • M. Fazil Baksh

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AL, UK)

  • Craig Steel

    (School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AL, UK
    Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford OX3 7JX, UK)

Abstract

The Positive Memory Training (PoMeT) trial demonstrated reduced depression symptoms at 3 months for schizophrenia, but its longer-term outcome and cost impacts remain unknown. This study is a within-trial cost-utility analysis with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as outcome based on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurement and secondary outcome analyses of capability well-being. The incremental cost-effectiveness of PoMeT was compared to Treatment As Usual only (TAU) over 9 months from the ‘health and social’ care and ‘societal’ perspectives. Uncertainty was explored using bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses for cost outliers and outcome methods. HRQoL improvement was observed for both PoMeT and TAU at 3 months, but reached statistical significance and was sustained only for TAU. There was no change in capability well-being and no significant group difference in QALYs gained over 9 months. Mean intervention cost was GBP 823. Compared to TAU, PoMeT had significantly higher mental health care costs (+GBP 1251, 95% CI GBP 185 to GBP 2316) during the trial, but ‘health and social care’ and ‘societal’ cost differences were non-significant. Compared to the before-trial period, psychiatric medication costs increased significantly in both groups. The probability of PoMeT being cost-effective in the given format over 9 months was <30% and decreased further in sensitivity analyses.. Generalizability remains limited since the before-after cost analysis revealed additional treatment effects also in the TAU group that likely diminished the incremental impacts and cost-effectiveness of PoMeT. It is not clear whether an active post-intervention follow-up could result in sustained longer-term effects and improved cost-effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Judit Simon & Noemi Kiss & Kees Korrelboom & David Kingdon & Til Wykes & Peter Phiri & Mark van der Gaag & M. Fazil Baksh & Craig Steel, 2022. "Cost-Effectiveness of Positive Memory Training (PoMeT) for the Treatment of Depression in Schizophrenia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:11985-:d:922024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/11985/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/11985/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nalin Payakachat & Mir Ali & J. Tilford, 2015. "Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1137-1154, November.
    2. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 68-80, April.
    3. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    2. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    3. Clarke, Philip M. & Hayes, Alison J., 2009. "Measuring achievement: Changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 552-561, February.
    4. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    5. Jordan Amdahl & Jose Diaz & Arati Sharma & Jinhee Park & David Chandiwana & Thomas E Delea, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    7. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    8. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    9. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost‐minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184, March.
    11. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    12. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. John Mullahy, 2017. "Individual Results May Vary: Elementary Analytics of Inequality-Probability Bounds, with Applications to Health-Outcome Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Bas Groot Koerkamp & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein, 2006. "Identifying key parameters in cost‐effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 383-392, April.
    16. Quang Dang Nguyen & Mikhail Prokopenko, 2022. "A general framework for optimising cost-effectiveness of pandemic response under partial intervention measures," Papers 2205.08996, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    17. Mullahy, John, 2018. "Individual results may vary: Inequality-probability bounds for some health-outcome treatment effects," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 151-162.
    18. Pauline Chauvin & Jean-Michel Josselin & Denis Heresbach, 2012. "Incremental net benefit and acceptability of alternative health policies: a case study of mass screening for colorectal cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 237-250, June.
    19. Elamin H. Elbasha, 2005. "Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost‐effectiveness analysis: the expected‐utility, moment‐generating function approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 457-470, May.
    20. Daniel Howdon & James Lomas, 2017. "Pricing implications of non-marginal budgetary impacts in health technology assessment: a conceptual model," Working Papers 148cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:11985-:d:922024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.