Assessing the costs and cost-effectiveness of ICare internet-based interventions (protocol).
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-utility
Economic evaluation
Internet-based interventions
Mental health
Service use
Journal
Internet interventions
ISSN: 2214-7829
Titre abrégé: Internet Interv
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101631612
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
20
12
2017
accepted:
19
02
2018
entrez:
19
2
2019
pubmed:
19
2
2019
medline:
19
2
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mental health problems are common and place a burden on the individual as well as on societal resources. Despite the existence of evidence-based treatments, access to treatment is often prevented or delayed due to insufficient health care resources. Effective internet-based self-help interventions have the potential to reduce the risk for mental health problems, to successfully bridge waiting time for face-to-face treatment and to address inequities in access. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. This paper describes the study protocol for the economic evaluation of the studies that form the ICare programme of internet-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of a range of mental health problems. An overarching work package within the ICare programme was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the internet-based interventions alongside the clinical trials. There are two underlying tasks in the ICare economic evaluation. First, to develop schedules that generate equivalent and comparable information on use of services and supports across seven countries taking part in clinical trials of different interventions and second, to estimate unit costs for each service and support used. From these data the cost per person will be estimated by multiplying each participant's use of each service by the unit cost for that service. Additionally, productivity losses will be estimated. This individual level of cost data matches the level of outcome data used in the clinical trials. Following the analyses of service use and costs data, joint analysis of costs and outcomes will be undertaken to provide findings on the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions, taking both a public sector and a societal perspective. These analyses use a well-established framework, the Production of Welfare approach, and standard methods and techniques underpinned by economic theory. Existing research tends to support the effectiveness of internet-based interventions, but there is little information on their cost-effectiveness compared to 'treatment as usual'. The economic evaluation of ICare interventions will add considerably to this evidence base.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mental health problems are common and place a burden on the individual as well as on societal resources. Despite the existence of evidence-based treatments, access to treatment is often prevented or delayed due to insufficient health care resources. Effective internet-based self-help interventions have the potential to reduce the risk for mental health problems, to successfully bridge waiting time for face-to-face treatment and to address inequities in access. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. This paper describes the study protocol for the economic evaluation of the studies that form the ICare programme of internet-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of a range of mental health problems.
METHODS
METHODS
An overarching work package within the ICare programme was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the internet-based interventions alongside the clinical trials. There are two underlying tasks in the ICare economic evaluation. First, to develop schedules that generate equivalent and comparable information on use of services and supports across seven countries taking part in clinical trials of different interventions and second, to estimate unit costs for each service and support used. From these data the cost per person will be estimated by multiplying each participant's use of each service by the unit cost for that service. Additionally, productivity losses will be estimated. This individual level of cost data matches the level of outcome data used in the clinical trials. Following the analyses of service use and costs data, joint analysis of costs and outcomes will be undertaken to provide findings on the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions, taking both a public sector and a societal perspective. These analyses use a well-established framework, the Production of Welfare approach, and standard methods and techniques underpinned by economic theory.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Existing research tends to support the effectiveness of internet-based interventions, but there is little information on their cost-effectiveness compared to 'treatment as usual'. The economic evaluation of ICare interventions will add considerably to this evidence base.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30775260
doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2018.02.009
pii: S2214-7829(17)30133-1
pmc: PMC6364355
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
12-19Références
Pharmacoeconomics. 1993 Nov;4(5):353-65
pubmed: 10146874
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):415-30
pubmed: 12112491
Stat Methods Med Res. 2002 Dec;11(6):455-68
pubmed: 12516984
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2002 Mar;5(1):21-31
pubmed: 12529567
Psychol Med. 2003 Aug;33(6):977-86
pubmed: 12946082
J Occup Environ Med. 2004 Apr;46(4):398-412
pubmed: 15076658
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;187:106-8
pubmed: 16055820
Gesundheitswesen. 2005 Oct;67(10):736-46
pubmed: 16235143
Med J Aust. 2005 Nov 21;183(10 Suppl):S73-6
pubmed: 16296957
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun 23;8(2):e10
pubmed: 16867965
J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Sep;17(3):547-79
pubmed: 17653835
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Dec 19;7:206
pubmed: 18093289
Ann Behav Med. 2009 Aug;38(1):40-5
pubmed: 19834778
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2007 Jun;7(3):291-7
pubmed: 20528315
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;197(4):297-304
pubmed: 20884953
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Jan;72(2):185-92
pubmed: 21146909
Behav Res Ther. 2011 Nov;49(11):729-36
pubmed: 21851929
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011 Oct;21(10):718-79
pubmed: 21924589
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 14;14(6):e152
pubmed: 23151820
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012 Dec;12(6):745-64
pubmed: 23252357
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Sep 05;11:151
pubmed: 24010873
Patient. 2014;7(1):85-96
pubmed: 24271592
PLoS One. 2014 May 20;9(5):e98118
pubmed: 24844847
Gesundheitswesen. 2015 Jan;77(1):53-61
pubmed: 25025287
Psychol Med. 2015 Dec;45(16):3357-76
pubmed: 26235445
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5):852-860
pubmed: 27745685
J Affect Disord. 2018 Jan 1;225:733-755
pubmed: 28922737
Depress Anxiety. 2018 Mar;35(3):209-219
pubmed: 29329486
Int J Eat Disord. 1994 Dec;16(4):363-70
pubmed: 7866415
BMJ. 1996 Aug 3;313(7052):275-83
pubmed: 8704542
Psychol Med. 1998 May;28(3):551-8
pubmed: 9626712