Cost-effectiveness Analysis of an Aftercare Service vs Treatment-As-Usual for Patients with Severe Mental Disorders.

This study was a parallel group randomized controlled trial. A total of 160 post-discharge eligible patients were randomized into two equal patient groups, Aftercare Service (that includes either Home Visiting Care, or Telephone Follow-up for outpatient treatment) vs Treatment-As-Usual, using stratified balanced block randomization method. All patients were followed for 12 months after discharge. The perspective of the present study was the societal perspective. The outcome measures were the rate of readmission at the hospitals after discharge, psychotic symptoms, manic symptoms, depressive symptoms, illness severity, global functioning, quality of life, and patients' satisfaction with the services. The costs included the intervention costs and the patient and family costs in the evaluation period. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in effectiveness measures between the two groups. The Aftercare Service arm was about 66,000 US$ cheaper than Treatment-As-Usual arm. The average total cost per patient in the Treatment-As-Usual group was about 4651 USD, while it was reduced to 3823 US$ in the Aftercare Service group; equivalent to a cost reduction of about 800 USD per patient per year. DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS: Given that there was no significant difference in effectiveness measures between the two groups (slightly in favor of the intervention), the Aftercare Service was cost-effective. The most important limitation of the study was the relatively smal...
Source: Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics - Category: Psychiatry Tags: J Ment Health Policy Econ Source Type: research