EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,517,315
Abstracts:
29,339,501
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

The use of a Cumulative Needs for Care Monitor for individual treatment v. care as usual for patients diagnosed with severe mental illness, a cost-effectiveness analysis from the health care perspective



The use of a Cumulative Needs for Care Monitor for individual treatment v. care as usual for patients diagnosed with severe mental illness, a cost-effectiveness analysis from the health care perspective



Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 21(4): 381-392



To study the systematic assessment of need for care and clinical parameters for use in treatment plans in patients diagnosed with severe mental illness. The Cumulative Needs for Care Monitor (CNCM) includes various validated instruments, such as the Camberwell Assessment of Need. A Markov-type cost-effectiveness model (health care perspective, 5-year time horizon) was used to compare CNCM with care as usual (CAU). Two studies were used to determine model parameters: a before–after study (n = 2155) and a matched-control study (n = 937). The CNCM may lead to a gain in psychiatric functioning according to the models. CNCM patients remain in (outpatient) care, while CAU patients drop out more frequently. There is only a small difference in inpatient care. As a result, average costs per patient in the CNCM group are between €2809 (before–after model) and €5251 (matched-control model) higher. The iCER was between €45 127 and €57 839 per life year without psychiatric dysfunction gained. CNCM may be only cost-effective when willingness to pay for a life year without psychiatric dysfunction is higher than €45 000. However, this result is highly sensitive to the level of psychiatric dysfunctioning in patients who do not receive care.

(PDF same-day service: $19.90)

Accession: 056522074

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22793689

DOI: 10.1017/S2045796012000248



Related references

Cost-effectiveness of problem-solving treatment in comparison with usual care for primary care patients with mental health problems: a randomized trial. Bmc Family Practice 13: 98-98, 2013

Cost-effectiveness of referral for generic care or problem-solving treatment from community mental health nurses, compared with usual general practitioner care for common mental disorders: Randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 189: 50-59, 2006

Supplement: Health Care Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: An Update || Are We Ready to Use Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health Care Decision-Making?: A Health Services Research Challenge for Clinicians, Patients, Health Care Systems, and Public Policy. Medical Care 36(5): Ms10-Ms17, 1998

Study protocol for a randomized, controlled, superiority trial comparing the clinical and cost- effectiveness of integrated online mental health assessment-referral-care in pregnancy to usual prenatal care on prenatal and postnatal mental health and infant health and development: the Integrated Maternal Psychosocial Assessment to Care Trial (IMPACT). Trials 15(): 72-72, 2014

Costs and expected gain in lifetime health from intensive care versus general ward care of 30,712 individual patients: a distribution-weighted cost-effectiveness analysis. Critical Care 21(1): 220-220, 2017

Cost-effectiveness of mental health services for persons with a dual diagnosis: a literature review and the CCMHCP. The Cost-Effectiveness of Community Mental Health Care for Single and Dually Diagnosed Project. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 18(2): 119-127, 2000

Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (versus usual care) for people with mental-physical multimorbidity: cluster-randomised trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 1-8, 2018

Cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis of multidisciplinary care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised comparison of clinical nurse specialist care, inpatient team care, and day patient team care. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 62(4): 308-315, 2003

Patients with mental illness in primary health care. A long-term follow-up of health care utilization and contact patterns with psychiatric care. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care 15(3): 129-133, 1997

Metabolic syndrome in antipsychotic naive African patients with severe mental illness in usual care. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 2017

Toward managed care for persons with severe mental illness: implications from a cost-effectiveness study. Health Affairs 14(3): 197-207, 1995

Is it time for a change? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a multidisciplinary integrated care model for residential homes to usual care. Plos One 7(5): E37444-E37444, 2012

Assertive community treatment versus usual care in engaging and retaining clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services 48(10): 1297-1306, 1997

The chasm of care: Where does the mental health nursing responsibility lie for the physical health care of people with severe mental illness?. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 25(6): 516-525, 2016

Care management increases the use of primary and medical care services by people with severe mental illness in community mental health settings. Evidence-Based Nursing 13(4): 128-129, 2010