Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstract for Reference 59

of 'Screening for depression in adults'

Cost-effectiveness of a primary care depression intervention.
Pyne JM, Rost KM, Zhang M, Williams DK, Smith J, Fortney J
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Jun;18(6):432-41.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement depression intervention (enhanced care) in primary care settings relative to usual care.
DESIGN: Following stratification, we randomized 12 primary care practices to enhanced or usual care conditions and followed patients for 12 months.
SETTING: Primary care practices located in 10 states across the United States.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eleven patients beginning a new treatment episode for major depression.
INTERVENTIONS: Training the primary care team to assess, educate, and monitor depressed patients during the acute and continuation stages of their depression treatment episode over 1 year.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness was measured by calculating incremental (enhanced minus usual care) costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from SF-36 data. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the main analysis was US dollars 15463 per QALY. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the sensitivity analyses ranged from US dollars 11341 (using geographic block variables to control for pre-intervention service utilization) to US dollars 19976 (increasing the cost estimates by 50%) per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement depression intervention was cost-effective relative to usual care compared to cost-effectiveness ratios for common primary care interventions and commonly cited cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds for intervention implementation.
HSRD Center for Mental Healthcare and Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, Arkansas 72114-1706, USA. pynejeffreym@uams.edu