The cost-effectiveness of a proportionate parenting programme for primary caregivers and their child: an economic evaluation using evidence from the E-SEE Trial.
Childhood health
Cost-effectiveness
E-SEE Steps
Incredible years
Parenting strategies
RCT
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jun 2022
23 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
15
12
2021
accepted:
17
06
2022
entrez:
23
6
2022
pubmed:
24
6
2022
medline:
28
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Behavioural and mental disorders have become a public health crisis; averting mental ill-health in early years can achieve significant longer-term health benefits and cost savings. This study assesses whether the Enhancing Social-Emotional Health and Wellbeing in the Early Years (E-SEE-Steps)-a proportionate universal delivery model comprising the Incredible Babies book (IY-B) and the Incredible Years Infant (IY-I) and Toddler (IY-T) parenting programmes is cost-effective compared to services as usual (SAU) for the primary caregiver, child and dyad. Using UK data for 339 primary caregivers from the E-SEE trial, we conducted a within-trial economic evaluation assessing the cost-effectiveness of E-SEE Steps. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in UK pounds sterling (2018-19). Missing data were populated via multiple imputation and costs and QALYs discounted at 3.5% per annum. Cost-effectiveness results were conducted for primary caregivers, children and dyad using econometric modelling to control for patient co-variables. Uncertainty was explored through scenario and sensitivity analyses. The average cost of E-SEE Steps intervention was £458.50 per dyad. E-SEE Steps was associated with modest gains in primary caregiver HRQoL but minor decrements in child HRQoL compared to SAU. For primary caregivers, E-SEE Steps was more effective (0.034 QALYs) and more costly (£446) compared to SAU, with a corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £13,011 per QALY. In children, E-SEE Steps was strictly dominated with poorer outcomes (-0.005 QALYs) and greater costs (£178) relative to SAU. QALY gains in primary caregivers exceeded those QALY losses found in children, meaning E-SEE Steps was more effective (0.031 QALYs) and costly (£621) for the dyad (ICER: £20,062 per QALY). All scenario analyses found E-SEE Steps cost-effective for the dyad at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Sensitivity analyses found significant cost reductions from expansions in programme delivery and attendance. E-SEE Steps achieved modest health gains in primary caregivers but small negative effects on children and was more costly than SAU. E-SEE Steps appears cost-effective for the dyad, but the results should be interpreted with caution given the potential detrimental impact on children. ISRCTN11079129 ; Pre participant trial enrolment, 11/05/2015.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Behavioural and mental disorders have become a public health crisis; averting mental ill-health in early years can achieve significant longer-term health benefits and cost savings. This study assesses whether the Enhancing Social-Emotional Health and Wellbeing in the Early Years (E-SEE-Steps)-a proportionate universal delivery model comprising the Incredible Babies book (IY-B) and the Incredible Years Infant (IY-I) and Toddler (IY-T) parenting programmes is cost-effective compared to services as usual (SAU) for the primary caregiver, child and dyad.
METHODS
METHODS
Using UK data for 339 primary caregivers from the E-SEE trial, we conducted a within-trial economic evaluation assessing the cost-effectiveness of E-SEE Steps. Health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in UK pounds sterling (2018-19). Missing data were populated via multiple imputation and costs and QALYs discounted at 3.5% per annum. Cost-effectiveness results were conducted for primary caregivers, children and dyad using econometric modelling to control for patient co-variables. Uncertainty was explored through scenario and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The average cost of E-SEE Steps intervention was £458.50 per dyad. E-SEE Steps was associated with modest gains in primary caregiver HRQoL but minor decrements in child HRQoL compared to SAU. For primary caregivers, E-SEE Steps was more effective (0.034 QALYs) and more costly (£446) compared to SAU, with a corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £13,011 per QALY. In children, E-SEE Steps was strictly dominated with poorer outcomes (-0.005 QALYs) and greater costs (£178) relative to SAU. QALY gains in primary caregivers exceeded those QALY losses found in children, meaning E-SEE Steps was more effective (0.031 QALYs) and costly (£621) for the dyad (ICER: £20,062 per QALY). All scenario analyses found E-SEE Steps cost-effective for the dyad at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Sensitivity analyses found significant cost reductions from expansions in programme delivery and attendance.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
E-SEE Steps achieved modest health gains in primary caregivers but small negative effects on children and was more costly than SAU. E-SEE Steps appears cost-effective for the dyad, but the results should be interpreted with caution given the potential detrimental impact on children.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN11079129 ; Pre participant trial enrolment, 11/05/2015.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35739551
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08220-x
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08220-x
pmc: PMC9219217
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
814Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD008225
pubmed: 22336837
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2019 May 22;7(1):1618661
pubmed: 31156762
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;46(8):837-49
pubmed: 16033632
JAMA. 1999 Nov 10;282(18):1737-44
pubmed: 10568646
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 19;13:972
pubmed: 24138747
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2004 Dec;7(4):177-89
pubmed: 15701933
BMJ Open. 2018 Dec 19;8(12):e026906
pubmed: 30573493
Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2011 Feb;16(1):38-46
pubmed: 21499534
BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):702-8
pubmed: 15031246
Stat Med. 2011 Feb 20;30(4):377-99
pubmed: 21225900
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Oct;17(5):577-590
pubmed: 31098947
Qual Life Res. 2014 Mar;23(2):403-11
pubmed: 23943259
Pharmacoeconomics. 1996 Nov;10(5):460-6
pubmed: 10172868
Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Feb;14(1):85-94
pubmed: 21853340
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(6):519-28
pubmed: 19640014
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 4;17(4):e0265200
pubmed: 35377882
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 May;37(5):631-643
pubmed: 30746613
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998 Oct;66(5):715-30
pubmed: 9803690
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1998 Jun;1(2):101-24
pubmed: 11324301
Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2018 Apr 12;12:19
pubmed: 29682005
Health Econ. 2001 Dec;10(8):779-87
pubmed: 11747057
Lancet. 2013 Oct 26;382(9902):1383-4
pubmed: 24243121
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 8;8(2):e014899
pubmed: 29439064