Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating an evidence-based, stepped and coordinated care service model for mental disorders (RECOVER).
adult psychiatry
child & adolescent psychiatry
health economics
organisation of health services
protocols & guidelines
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 05 2020
04 05 2020
Historique:
entrez:
7
5
2020
pubmed:
7
5
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Healthcare systems around the world are looking for solutions to the growing problem of mental disorders. RECOVER is the synonym for an evidence-based, stepped and cross-sectoral coordinated care service model for mental disorders. RECOVER implements a cross-sectoral network with managed care, comprehensive psychological, somatic and social diagnostics, crisis resolution and a general structure of four severity levels, each with assigned evidence-based therapy models (eg, assertive community treatment) and therapies (eg, psychotherapy). The study rationale is the investigation of the effectiveness and efficiency of stepped and integrated care in comparison to standard care. The trial is conducted in accordance to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement. The study aims to compare the RECOVER model with treatment as usual (TAU). The following questions are examined: Does RECOVER reduce healthcare costs compared with TAU? Does RECOVER improve patient-relevant outcomes? Is RECOVER cost-effective compared with TAU? A total sample of 890 patients with mental disorders will be assessed at baseline and individually randomised into RECOVER or TAU. Follow-up assessments are conducted after 6 and 12 months. As primary outcomes, cost reduction, improvement in symptoms, daily functioning and quality of life as well as cost-effectiveness ratios will be measured. In addition, several secondary outcomes will be assessed. Primary and secondary outcomes are evaluated according to the intention-to-treat principle. Mixed linear or logistic regression models are used with the direct maximum likelihood estimation procedure which results in unbiassed estimators under the missing-at-random assumption. Costs due to healthcare utilisation and productivity losses are evaluated using difference-in-difference regressions. Ethical approval from the ethics committee of the Hamburg Medical Association has been obtained (PV5672). The results will be disseminated to service users and their families via the media, to healthcare professionals via professional training and meetings and to researchers via conferences and publications. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03459664), RECOVER PROTOCOL VERSION: 19 March 2020 (V.3.0).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32371520
pii: bmjopen-2019-036021
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036021
pmc: PMC7223141
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03459664']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e036021Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: ML: consultant or speaker fees AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Janssen Cilag GmbH, Lundbeck GmbH, Otsuka Pharma GmbH, Roche Deutschland Holding GmbH, Sanovi Aventis, Trommsdorff GmbH & Co KG. AK: consultant or speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Janssen Cilag GmbH, Lundbeck GmbH, Otsuka Pharma GmbH, Roche Deutschland Holding GmbH. JG: speaker fees from Lundbeck GmbH, Otsuka Pharma GmbH, Janssen Cilag GmbH. DL: speaker fees Janssen Cilag GmbH.
Références
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2017 Aug;136(2):188-200
pubmed: 28589683
J Affect Disord. 2015 Jan 1;170:119-30
pubmed: 25240141
Community Ment Health J. 2019 Jul;55(5):755-767
pubmed: 30623294
Personal Ment Health. 2018 Aug;12(3):252-264
pubmed: 29709109
Gesundheitswesen. 2015 Jan;77(1):53-61
pubmed: 25025287
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020 Mar;270(2):139-152
pubmed: 30607530
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019 Nov 1;45(6):560-576
pubmed: 31184758
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 27;13(2):e0192929
pubmed: 29485988
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 6;13(11):e0206472
pubmed: 30399184
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2013;55(6):427-38
pubmed: 23864410
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 20;8(1):9389
pubmed: 29925893
Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2009;55(2):162-79
pubmed: 19402020
J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 Mar;73(3):e402-8
pubmed: 22490266
Gesundheitswesen. 2017 Jan;79(1):48-57
pubmed: 26402381
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2014 Sep;23(3):304-19
pubmed: 24729411
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(2):173-81
pubmed: 24986344
Psychiatry Res. 1998 Jun 15;79(2):163-73
pubmed: 9705054
Psychol Med. 2017 Oct;47(13):2217-2228
pubmed: 28397632
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2019 Feb;62(2):163-172
pubmed: 30623205
Gesundheitswesen. 2015 Jan;77(1):46-52
pubmed: 24806594
J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;71(10):1313-23
pubmed: 20361911
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 05;6:29281
pubmed: 27377429
Schizophr Res. 2018 Mar;193:377-383
pubmed: 28778554
Psychiatr Prax. 2018 Mar;45(2):87-94
pubmed: 28125848
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7
pubmed: 23295957
World Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;16(1):90-99
pubmed: 28127925
Implement Sci. 2012 Jan 16;7:3
pubmed: 22248385
J Clin Psychiatry. 2019 Mar 19;80(2):
pubmed: 30900849