First-episode psychosis intervention programme versus standard care for the clinical management of early phases of psychosis: cost analysis

首发精神病干预项目与早期精神病临床管理标准治疗方案的成本分析

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Early intervention programmes (EIPs) in psychosis have gained attention as specialised interventions to improve health-related and societal impacts for people with psychotic disorders. Previous studies have presented evidence in favour of EIPs over the first year of intervention, despite none considering the critical period before psychosis onset (5 years). AIMS: To compare the associated costs of the First Episode Psychosis Intervention Program (CRUPEP) and treatment as usual (TAU) in a real-world cohort in a non-specialised psychiatric community setting. METHOD: Direct and indirect mental health-related costs were calculated over 1 year and up to 7 years. Healthcare and societal costs were calculated from economic data related to the consumption of all healthcare resources, including emergency department attendances, hospital admissions, psychotropic medication prescriptions and societal costs. RESULTS: From a healthcare perspective, the intervention (CRUPEP) group initially showed a marginally higher cost per patient than the TAU group (€7621 TAU group v. €11 904 CRUPEP group) over the first year of follow-up. However, this difference was reversed between the groups on considering the entire follow-up, with the TAU group showing considerably higher associated costs per patient (€77 026 TAU v. €25 247 CRUPEP). CONCLUSIONS: The EIP (CRUPEP) showed clinical benefits and minimised the direct and indirect health-related costs of the management of psychosis. Although the CRUPEP intervention initially reported increased costs over 1 year, TAU surpassed the global costs over the entire follow-up.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。