Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study of a psychoeducational group intervention for people with depression and physical comorbidity in primary care

Antonia Raya-Tena,María Isabel Fernández-San-Martín,Jaume Martín-Royo,Marc Casajuana-Closas,María Francisca Jiménez-Herrera,Grup Psicodep,M I Fernández-San-Martin,J Martin-Royo,G Sauch-Valmaña,A Raya-Tena,R Casañas-Sanchez,E M Fernandez-Linares,R Masa-Font,C Cols-Sagarra,J Mendioroz-Peña,S Gonzalez-Tejon,L M Martin-López,Q Foguet-Boreu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcle.2024.03.005
Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a psychoeducational group intervention led by primary care (PC) nurses in relation to customary care to prevent the depression and improve quality of life in patients with physical comorbidity. Design: Economic evaluation based on data from randomized, multicenter clinical trial with blind response variables and a one-year follow-up, carried in the context of the PSICODEP study. Location: 7 PC teams from Catalonia. Participants: >50 year-old patients with depression and some physical comorbidity: diabetes mellitus type 2, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or asthma. Intervention: 12 psychoeducational group sessions, 1 per week, led by 2 PC nurses with prior training. Measurements: Effectiveness: depression-free days (DFD) calculated from the BDI-II and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the Euroqol-5D. Direct costs: PC visits, mental health, emergencies and hospitalizations, drugs. Indirect costs: days of temporary disability (TD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), cost-effectiveness (ΔCost/ΔDLD) and cost-utility (ΔCost/ΔQALY) were estimated. Results: The study includes 380 patients (intervention group [IG] = 204; control group [CG] = 176). 81.6% women; mean age 68.4 (SD = 8.8). The IG had a higher mean cost of visits, less of hospitalizations and less TD than the CG. The difference in costs between the IG and the CG was -357.95€ (95% CI: -2026.96 to 1311.06) at one year of follow-up. There was a mean of 11.95 (95% CI: -15.98 to 39.88) more DFD in the IG than in the CG. QALYs were similar (difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05). The ICERs were 29.95€/DLD and 35,795€/QALY. Conclusions: Psychoeducational intervention is associated with an improvement in DFD, as well as a reduction in costs at 12 months, although not significantly. QALYs were very similar between groups.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?