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
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

814

Informations 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

Auteurs

Edward Cox (E)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK. edward.cox@york.ac.uk.

Simon Walker (S)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Sarah Blower (S)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Filipa Sampaio (F)

Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Tracey Bywater (T)

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Gerry Richardson (G)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH