Cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated quality improvement for depression: Results of a randomized controlled trial
Article
Schoenbaum, M, Unützer, J, Sherbourne, C et al. (2001). Cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated quality improvement for depression: Results of a randomized controlled trial
. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 286(11), 1325-1330. 10.1001/jama.286.11.1325
Schoenbaum, M, Unützer, J, Sherbourne, C et al. (2001). Cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated quality improvement for depression: Results of a randomized controlled trial
. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 286(11), 1325-1330. 10.1001/jama.286.11.1325
Context: Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide, but treatment rates in primary care are low. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of 2 quality improvement (QI) interventions to improve treatment of depression in primary care and their effects on patient employment. Design: Group-level randomized controlled trial conducted June 1996 to July 1999. Setting: Forty-six primary care clinics in 6 community-based managed care organizations. Participants: One hundred eighty-one primary care clinicians and 1356 patients with positive screening results for current depression. Interventions: Matched practices were randomly assigned to provide usual care (n = 443 patients) or to 1 of 2 QI interventions offering training to practice leaders and nurses, enhanced educational and assessment resources, and either nurses for medication follow-up (QI-meds; n = 424 patients) or trained local psychotherapists (QI-therapy; n = 489). Practices could flexibly implement the interventions, which did not assign type of treatment. Main Outcome Measures: Total health care costs, costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), days with depression burden, and employment over 24 months, compared between usual care and the 2 interventions. Results: Relative to usual care, average health care costs increased $419 (11%) in QI-meds (P = .35) and $485 (13%) in QI-therapy (P = .28); estimated costs per QALY gained were between $15331 and $36467 for QI-meds and $9478 and $21 478 for QI-therapy; and patients had 25 (P = .19) and 47 (P = .01) fewer days with depression burden and were employed 17.9 (P = .07) and 20.9 (P = .03) more days during the study period. Conclusions: Societal cost-effectiveness of practice-initiated QI efforts for depression is comparable with that of accepted medical interventions. The intervention effects on employment may be of particular interest to employers and other stakeholders.
