IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0181021.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Depression screening with patient-targeted feedback in cardiology: The cost-effectiveness of DEPSCREEN-INFO

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Brettschneider
  • Sebastian Kohlmann
  • Benjamin Gierk
  • Bernd Löwe
  • Hans-Helmut König

Abstract

Background: Although depression is common in patients with heart disease, screening for depression is much debated. DEPSCREEN-INFO showed that a patient-targeted feedback in addition to screening results in lower depression level six months after screening. The purpose of this analysis was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of DEPSCREEN-INFO. Methods: Patients with coronary heart disease or arterial hypertension were included. Participants in both groups were screened for depression. Participants in the intervention group additionally received a patient-targeted feedback of their result and recommended treatment options. A cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on the EQ-5D was performed. The time horizon was 6 months. Resource utilization was assessed by a telephone interview. Multiple imputation using chained equations was used. Net-benefit regressions controlled for prognostic variables at baseline were performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Different sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: 375 participants (intervention group: 155; control group: 220) were included at baseline. After 6 months, in the intervention group adjusted total costs were lower (-€2,098; SE: €1,717) and more QALY were gained (0.0067; SD: 0.0133); yet differences were not statistically significant. The probability of cost-effectiveness was around 80% independent of the willingness-to-pay (range: €0/QALY–€130,000/QALY). The results were robust. Conclusions: A patient-targeted feedback in addition to depression screening in cardiology is cost-effective with a high probability. This underpins the use of the patient-targeted feedbacks and the PHQ-9 that are both freely available and easy to implement in routine care.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Brettschneider & Sebastian Kohlmann & Benjamin Gierk & Bernd Löwe & Hans-Helmut König, 2017. "Depression screening with patient-targeted feedback in cardiology: The cost-effectiveness of DEPSCREEN-INFO," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0181021
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181021
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181021&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0181021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cinderella K. Cardol & Judith Tommel & Henriët van Middendorp & Yvette Ciere & Jacob K. Sont & Andrea W. M. Evers & Sandra van Dijk, 2021. "Detecting and Treating Psychosocial and Lifestyle-Related Difficulties in Chronic Disease: Development and Treatment Protocol of the E-GOAL eHealth Care Pathway," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-23, March.
    2. María J. Mendoza-Jiménez & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2024. "On spillovers in economic evaluations: definition, mapping review and research agenda," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1239-1260, September.

    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. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    2. Ya-Chen Shih & Nebiyou Bekele & Ying Xu, 2007. "Use of Bayesian Net Benefit Regression Model to Examine the Impact of Generic Drug Entry on the Cost Effectiveness of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Elderly Depressed Patients," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 843-862, October.
    3. Nicholas Graves & Mary Courtney & Helen Edwards & Anne Chang & Anthony Parker & Kathleen Finlayson, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Emergency Re-Admissions to Hospital among Older Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-9, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Hoch, Jeffrey S. & Blume, Jeffrey D., 2008. "Measuring and illustrating statistical evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 476-495, March.
    6. Daisuke Goto & Ya-Chen Tina Shih & Pascal Lecomte & Melvin Olson & Chukwukadibia Udeze & Yujin Park & C. Daniel Mullins, 2017. "Regression-Based Approaches to Patient-Centered Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 685-695, July.
    7. Janneke Grutters & Mark Sculpher & Andrew Briggs & Johan Severens & Math Candel & James Stahl & Dirk Ruysscher & Albert Boer & Bram Ramaekers & Manuela Joore, 2013. "Acknowledging Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 111-123, February.
    8. Nikki McCaffrey & Meera Agar & Janeane Harlum & Jonathon Karnon & David Currow & Simon Eckermann, 2015. "Better Informing Decision Making with Multiple Outcomes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis under Uncertainty in Cost-Disutility Space," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & W. J. Edmunds, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Data from Cluster Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 209-220, January.
    10. David Meads & Andrea Marshall & Claire Hulme & Janet Dunn & Hugo Ford, 2016. "The Cost Effectiveness of Docetaxel and Active Symptom Control versus Active Symptom Control Alone for Refractory Oesophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: Economic Analysis of the COUGAR-02 Trial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 33-42, January.
    11. Jeffrey Hoch & Carolyn Dewa, 2007. "Lessons from Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Mental Health Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 807-816, October.
    12. Ilias Goranitis & Joanna Coast & Ed Day & Alex Copello & Nick Freemantle & Emma Frew, 2017. "Maximizing Health or Sufficient Capability in Economic Evaluation? A Methodological Experiment of Treatment for Drug Addiction," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 498-511, July.
    13. Theodoros Mantopoulos & Paul M. Mitchell & Nicky J. Welton & Richard McManus & Lazaros Andronis, 2016. "Choice of statistical model for cost-effectiveness analysis and covariate adjustment: empirical application of prominent models and assessment of their results," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 927-938, November.
    14. Zou, Guang Yong & Taleban, Julia & Huo, Cindy Y., 2009. "Confidence interval estimation for lognormal data with application to health economics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(11), pages 3755-3764, September.
    15. Sennen Hounton & David Newlands, 2012. "Applying the Net-Benefit Framework for Analyzing and Presenting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Maternal and Newborn Health Intervention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-8, July.
    16. Peter Makai & Willemijn Looman & Eddy Adang & René Melis & Elly Stolk & Isabelle Fabbricotti, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 437-450, May.
    17. Noemi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Rosalba Radice & Zia Sadique & Roland Ramsahai & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2012. "Methods for Estimating Subgroup Effects in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 750-763, November.
    18. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    19. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    20. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0181021. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.