Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jan 19:10:19.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-19.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review

Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. A systematic review

Kirsten M van Steenbergen-Weijenburg et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care.

Methods: A systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported.

Results: 8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were $24.

Conclusions: Although studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart (Moher et al [17]).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Permutation matrix for the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care vs. care as usual. (Adopted from Nixon et al [22]).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O. The Epidemiology of Major Depressive Disorder Results From the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) JAMA. 2003;289:3095–105. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3095. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990-2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 1997;349:1498–504. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)07492-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andrews G, Issakidis C, Sanderson K, Corry J, Lapsley H. Utilising survey data to inform public policy: comparison of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of ten mental disorders. Br J Psychiatry. 2004;184:526–33. doi: 10.1192/bjp.184.6.526. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Meeuwissen JAC, Feltz-Cornelis CM van der, van Marwijk HWJ, Rijnders P, Donker M. A stepped care programme for depression management: an uncontrolled pre-post study in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands. Int journal integr care. 2008;8:e05. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bijl D, van Marwijk HW, De Haan M, Van Tilburg W, Beekman AJ. Effectiveness of disease management programmes for recognition, diagnosis and treatment of depression in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract. 2004;10:6–12. doi: 10.3109/13814780409094220. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources