TY - JOUR
T1 - Economic evaluation of stepped care for the management of childhood anxiety disorders
T2 - Results from a randomised trial
AU - Chatterton, Mary Lou
AU - Rapee, Ronald M.
AU - Catchpool, Max
AU - Lyneham, Heidi J.
AU - Wuthrich, Viviana
AU - Hudson, Jennifer L.
AU - Kangas, Maria
AU - Mihalopoulos, Cathrine
N1 - Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by National Health & Medical Research Council (grant APP1027556).
Publisher Copyright:
© The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2019.
PY - 2019/7
Y1 - 2019/7
N2 - Background: Stepped care has been promoted for the management of mental disorders; however, there is no empirical evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of this approach for the treatment of anxiety disorders in youth. Method: This economic evaluation was conducted within a randomised controlled trial comparing stepped care to a validated, manualised treatment in 281 young people, aged 7–17, with a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Intervention costs were determined from therapist records. Administrative data on medication and medical service use were used to determine additional health care costs during the study period. Parents also completed a resource use questionnaire to collect medications, services not captured in administrative data and parental lost productivity. Outcomes included participant-completed quality of life, Child Health Utility – nine-dimension and parent-completed Assessment of Quality of Life – eight-dimension to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years were compared between groups at 12-month follow-up. Results: Intervention delivery costs were significantly less for stepped care from the societal perspective (mean difference −$198, 95% confidence interval −$353 to −$19). Total combined costs were less for stepped care from both societal (−$1334, 95% confidence interval −$2386 to $510) and health sector (−$563, 95% confidence interval −$1353 to $643) perspectives but did not differ significantly from the manualised treatment. Youth and parental quality-adjusted life years were not significantly different between groups. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust. Conclusion: For youth with anxiety, this three-step model provided comparable outcomes and total health sector costs to a validated face-to-face programme. However, it was less costly to deliver from a societal perspective, making it an attractive option for some parents. Future economic evaluations comparing various models of stepped care to treatment as usual are recommended.
AB - Background: Stepped care has been promoted for the management of mental disorders; however, there is no empirical evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of this approach for the treatment of anxiety disorders in youth. Method: This economic evaluation was conducted within a randomised controlled trial comparing stepped care to a validated, manualised treatment in 281 young people, aged 7–17, with a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Intervention costs were determined from therapist records. Administrative data on medication and medical service use were used to determine additional health care costs during the study period. Parents also completed a resource use questionnaire to collect medications, services not captured in administrative data and parental lost productivity. Outcomes included participant-completed quality of life, Child Health Utility – nine-dimension and parent-completed Assessment of Quality of Life – eight-dimension to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years were compared between groups at 12-month follow-up. Results: Intervention delivery costs were significantly less for stepped care from the societal perspective (mean difference −$198, 95% confidence interval −$353 to −$19). Total combined costs were less for stepped care from both societal (−$1334, 95% confidence interval −$2386 to $510) and health sector (−$563, 95% confidence interval −$1353 to $643) perspectives but did not differ significantly from the manualised treatment. Youth and parental quality-adjusted life years were not significantly different between groups. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust. Conclusion: For youth with anxiety, this three-step model provided comparable outcomes and total health sector costs to a validated face-to-face programme. However, it was less costly to deliver from a societal perspective, making it an attractive option for some parents. Future economic evaluations comparing various models of stepped care to treatment as usual are recommended.
KW - anxiety disorder
KW - child anxiety
KW - Cost-effectiveness
KW - stepped care
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85060733817
U2 - 10.1177/0004867418823272
DO - 10.1177/0004867418823272
M3 - Article
C2 - 30658546
AN - SCOPUS:85060733817
SN - 0004-8674
VL - 53
SP - 673
EP - 682
JO - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
JF - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
IS - 7
ER -