Economic evaluations of nonpharmacological treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review.

This study was undertaken to systematically identify and critically appraise all published full economic evaluations assessing the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study criteria was used to design search strategies for the identification and selection of relevant studies. Literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, International Health Technology Assessment, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases to identify articles published between January 2000 and May 2023. Web of Science was additionally used to perform forward and backward referencing. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was performed by two independent researchers. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 were applied for quality assessment. A total of 4470 studies were identified, of which 18 met our inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies conducted model-based economic evaluation, and others were trial-based. Three studies showed that epilepsy surgery was cost-effective in adults, whereas this remained inconclusive for children (two positive, three negative). Three studies showed negative economic outcome for ketogenic diet in children. One of four studies showed positive results for self-management. For vagus nerve stimulation, one study showed positive results in adults and another one negative results in children. One recent study showed cost-effectiveness of responsive neurostimulation (RNS) in adults. Finally, one study showed promising but inconclusive results for deep brain stimulation (DBS). The mean scores for risk of bias assessment (based on CHEC) and for reporting quality (CHEERS 2022) were 95.8% and 80.5%, respectively. This review identified studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological treatments in both adults and children with drug-resistant epilepsy, suggesting that in adults, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation, and RNS are cost-effective, and that DBS and self-management appear to be promising. In children, the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery remains inconclusive. Finally, the use of ketogenic diet was shown not to be cost-effective. However, limited long-term data were available for newer interventions (i.e., ketogenic diet, DBS, and RNS).

Parental preferences for seizure detection devices: A discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies identified essential user preferences for seizure detection devices (SDDs), without addressing their relative strength. We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify attributes' strength, and to identify the determinants of user SDD preferences. METHODS: We designed an online questionnaire targeting parents of children with epilepsy to define the optimal balance between SDD sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) while accounting for individual seizure frequency. We selected five DCE attributes from a recent study. Using a Bayesian design, we constructed 11 unique choice tasks and analyzed these using a mixed multinomial logit model. RESULTS: One hundred parents responded to the online questionnaire link; 49 completed all tasks, whereas 28 completed the questions, but not the DCE. Most parents preferred a relatively high sensitivity (80%-90%) over a high PPV (>50%). The preferred sensitivity-to-PPV ratio correlated with seizure frequency (r = -.32), with a preference for relative high sensitivity and low PPV among those with relative low seizure frequency (p = .04). All DCE attributes significantly impacted parental choices. Parents expressed preferences for consulting a neurologist before device use, personally training the device's algorithm, interaction with their child via audio and video, alarms for all seizure types, and an interface detailing measurements during an alarm. Preferences varied between subgroups (learning disability or not, SDD experience, relative low vs. high seizure frequency based on the population median). SIGNIFICANCE: Various attributes impact parental SDD preferences and may explain why preferences vary among users. Tailored approaches may help to meet the contrasting needs among SDD users.

Economic evaluation of deep brain stimulation compared with vagus nerve stimulation and usual care for patients with refractory epilepsy: A lifetime decision analytic model.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to estimate the cost-effectiveness of deep brain stimulation (DBS) compared with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and care as usual (CAU) for adult patients with refractory epilepsy from a health care perspective using a lifetime decision analytic model. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of DBS compared with VNS and CAU. Transition probabilities were estimated from a randomized controlled trial, and assumptions were made in consensus with an expert panel. Primary outcomes were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and per responder. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to characterize parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In DBS, 28.4% of the patients were responders, with an average of 21.38 QALYs per patient and expected lifetime health care costs of €187 791. VNS had fewer responders (22.3%), fewer QALYs (20.70), and lower lifetime costs (€156 871). CAU had the fewest responders (6.2%), fewest QALYs (18.74), and lowest total health care costs (€64 670). When comparing with CAU, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed that costs per QALY gained were slightly lower for DBS (€46 640) than for VNS (€47 155). When comparing DBS with VNS, an incremental cost per additional QALY gained of €45 170 was found for DBS. Sensitivity analyses showed that ICERs were heavily dependent on assumptions regarding loss to follow-up in the respective clinical trial. SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests that, given current limited evidence, VNS and DBS are potentially cost-effective treatment strategies compared to CAU for patients with refractory epilepsy. However, results for DBS were heavily impacted by assumptions made to extrapolate nonresponse from the original trial. More stringent assumptions regarding nonresponse resulted in an ICER just above an acceptable willingness to pay threshold. Given the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of DBS and the large impact of assumptions related to nonresponse, further empirical research is needed to reduce uncertainty.

Exercise enhances: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial on aerobic exercise as depression treatment augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a considerable public health concern. In spite of evidence-based treatments for MDD, many patients do not improve and relapse is common. Therefore, improving treatment outcomes is much needed and adjunct exercise treatment may have great potential. Exercise was shown to be effective as monotherapy for depression and as augmentation strategy, with evidence for increasing neuroplasticity. Data on the cost-effectiveness and the long-term effects of adjunct exercise treatment are missing. Similarly, the cognitive pathways toward remission are not well understood. METHODS: The present study is designed as a multicenter randomized superiority trial in two parallel groups with follow-up assessments up to 15 months. Currently depressed outpatients (N = 120) are randomized to guideline concordant Standard Care (gcSC) alone or gcSC with adjunct exercise treatment for 12 weeks. Randomization is stratified by gender and setting, using a four, six, and eight block design. Exercise treatment is offered in accordance with the NICE guidelines and empirical evidence, consisting of one supervised and two at-home exercise sessions per week at moderate intensity. We expect that gcSC with adjunct exercise treatment is more (cost-)effective in decreasing depressive symptoms compared to gcSC alone. Moreover, we will investigate the effect of adjunct exercise treatment on other health-related outcomes (i.e. functioning, fitness, physical activity, health-related quality of life, and motivation and energy). In addition, the mechanisms of change will be studied by exploring any change in rumination, self-esteem, and memory bias as possible mediators between exercise treatment and depression outcomes. DISCUSSION: The present trial aims to inform the scientific and clinical community about the (cost-)effectiveness and psychosocial mechanisms of change of adjunct exercise treatment when implemented in the mental health service setting. Results of the present study may improve treatment outcomes in MDD and facilitate implementation of prescriptive exercise treatment in outpatient settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered within the Netherlands Trial Register (code: NL8432 , date: 6th March, 2020).

Implementing interventions to reduce work-related stress among health-care workers: an investment appraisal from the employer's perspective.

PURPOSE: The Stress-Prevention@Work implementation strategy has been demonstrated to be successful in reducing stress in employees. Now, we assess the economic return-on-investment to see if it would make for a favourable business case for employers. METHODS: Data were collected from 303 health-care workers assigned to either a waitlisted control condition (142 employees in 15 teams) or to Stress-Prevention@Work (161 employees in 15 teams). Main outcome was productivity losses measured using the Trimbos and iMTA Cost questionnaire in Psychiatry. Measurements were taken at baseline, 6, and 12 months post-baseline. RESULTS: The per-employee costs of the strategy were €50. Net monetary benefits were the benefits (i.e., improved productivity) minus the costs (i.e., intervention costs) and were the main outcome of this investment appraisal. Per-employee net benefits amounted to €2981 on average, which was an almost 60-fold payout of the initial investment of €50. There was a 96.7% likelihood for the modest investment of €50 to be offset by cost savings within 1 year. Moreover, a net benefit of at least €1000 still has a likelihood of 88.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In general, there was a high likelihood that Stress-Prevention@Work offers an appealing business case from the perspective of employers, but the employer should factor in the additional per-employee costs of the stress-reducing interventions. Still, if these additional costs were as high as €2981, then costs and benefits would break even. This study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register, trial code: NTR5527.

Cost-effectiveness and Cost-utility of the Adherence Improving Self-management Strategy in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Care: A Trial-based Economic Evaluation.

Background: Several promising human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment adherence interventions have been identified, but data about their cost-effectiveness are lacking. This study examines the trial-based cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the proven-effective Adherence Improving Self-Management Strategy (AIMS), from a societal perspective, with a 15-month time horizon. Methods: Treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients at risk for viral rebound were randomized to treatment as usual (TAU) or AIMS in a multicenter randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. AIMS is a nurse-led, 1-on-1 self-management intervention incorporating feedback from electronic medication monitors, delivered during routine clinical visits. Main outcomes were costs per reduction in log10 viral load, treatment failure (2 consecutive detectable viral loads), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Two hundred twenty-three patients were randomized. From a societal perspective, AIMS was slightly more expensive than TAU but also more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €549 per reduction in log10 viral load and €1659 per percentage decrease in treatment failure. In terms of QALYs, AIMS resulted in higher costs but more QALYs compared to TAU, which resulted in an ICER of €27759 per QALY gained. From a healthcare perspective, AIMS dominated TAU. Additional sensitivity analyses addressing key limitations of the base case analyses also suggested that AIMS dominates TAU. Conclusions: Base case analyses suggests that over a period of 15 months, AIMS may be costlier, but also more effective than TAU. All additional analyses suggest that AIMS is cheaper and more effective than TAU. This trial-based economic evaluation confirms and complements a model-based economic evaluation with a lifetime horizon showing that AIMS is cost-effective. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01429142.

Effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the ZMILE study was to compare the effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE) over a six-month period. METHODS: Participants (PWE & relative) were randomized into intervention or CAU groups. Self-report questionnaires were used to measure disease-specific self-efficacy as the primary outcome measure and general self-efficacy, adherence, seizure severity, emotional functioning, quality of life, proactive coping, and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs (AED) as secondary outcome measures. Instruments used at baseline and during a six-month follow-up period were the following: disease-specific self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES], General Self-Efficacy Scale [GSES]); adherence (Medication Adherence Scale [MARS] and Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS]); seizure severity (National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale [NHS3]); emotional well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]); quality of life (Quality of Life in Epilepsy [QOLIE-31P]); proactive coping (Utrecht Proactive Coping Competence [UPCC]); and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs [SIDAED]. Multilevel analyses were performed, and baseline differences were corrected by inclusion of covariates in the analyses. RESULTS: In total, 102 PWE were included in the study, 52 of whom were in the intervention group. On the SIDAED and on three of the quality of life subscales QOLIE-31P, a significant difference was found (p<0.05) in the intervention group. Self-efficacy, however, showed no significant differences between the MCI and the CAU groups. None of the other outcome measures showed any significant difference between the two groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Although we found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome measure, disease-specific self-efficacy, this MCI could prove promising, since we found improvement in some domains of quality of life in epilepsy scale and a decrease in AED side-effects in the MCI group compared with the CAU group.

An economic evaluation of a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this (trial-based) economic evaluation was, from a societal perspective, to compare the cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy over a 12-month period. METHODS: In a randomized-controlled trial, participants were randomized into intervention or CAU group. Adherence, self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES]), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), healthcare costs, production losses, and patient and family costs were assessed at baseline and during the 12-month study period. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e., cost per increased adherence, self-efficacy, or QALY), and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 102 patients were included in the study, of whom 52 were in the intervention group. Adherence rates over 6 months were 63.7% for the CAU group and 75.9% for the intervention group. Adherence, ESES, and quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. An ICER of €54 per point increase in ESES score at 6 months and €1,105 per point increase at 12-month follow-up was found. The intervention resulted in an ICER of €88 per percentage of adherence increase at 6 months. ICERs of €8,272 and €15,144 per QALY gained were found at 6- and 12-month follow-up, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Although no statistically significant difference was found after baseline adjustments, cost-effectiveness estimates for MCI appear promising. As rules of inference are arbitrary, it has been argued that decisions should be based only on the net benefits, irrespective of whether differences are statistically significant. Hence, the MCI may be a cost-effective addition to the current standard care for adults with epilepsy.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy.

The increasing number of treatment options and the high costs associated with epilepsy have fostered the development of economic evaluations in epilepsy. It is important to examine the availability and quality of these economic evaluations and to identify potential research gaps. As well as looking at both pharmacologic (antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and nonpharmacologic (e.g., epilepsy surgery, ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation) therapies, this review examines the methodologic quality of the full economic evaluations included. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, Web of Science, and CEA Registry. In addition, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane DARE and Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Databases were used. To identify relevant studies, predefined clinical search strategies were combined with a search filter designed to identify health economic studies. Specific search strategies were devised for the following topics: (1) AEDs, (2) patients with cognitive deficits, (3) elderly patients, (4) epilepsy surgery, (5) ketogenic diet, (6) vagus nerve stimulation, and (7) treatment of (non)convulsive status epilepticus. A total of 40 publications were included in this review, 29 (73%) of which were articles about pharmacologic interventions. Mean quality score of all articles on the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-extended was 81.8%, the lowest quality score being 21.05%, whereas five studies had a score of 100%. Looking at the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the average quality score was 77.0%, the lowest being 22.7%, and four studies rated as 100%. There was a substantial difference in methodology in all included articles, which hampered the attempt to combine information meaningfully. Overall, the methodologic quality was acceptable; however, some studies performed significantly worse than others. The heterogeneity between the studies stresses the need to define a reference case (e.g., how should an economic evaluation within epilepsy be performed) and to derive consensus on what constitutes "standard optimal care."

Process evaluation of a multi-component self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study).

BACKGROUND: People with epilepsy need to monitor and manage their symptoms. They, as well as their relatives, have to deal with the psychological burden, reflected in a reduced quality of life. Support in self-management can be of importance. We have developed a multi-component self-management intervention for patients and their relatives (MCI). This eight-week group intervention is conducted by nurse practitioners and consists of six two-hour sessions. The main components are: 1) providing self-management education, 2) stimulating proactive coping and goal-setting and 3) facilitating peer and social support. This study is a process evaluation to establish the feasibility, fidelity and acceptability of the intervention by assessing performance according to protocol, attendance and adherence, and the opinion of patients, relatives and facilitators about the intervention. METHOD: Study population consists of 52 patients with epilepsy living in the community (e.g. at home), 37 relatives and six facilitators. In this prospective mixed methods study, data were gathered using questionnaires for patients and relatives, registration forms for facilitators and by carrying out semi-structured group interviews with patients, relatives and facilitators. RESULTS: Patients and relatives attended a mean of 5.2 sessions. Forty-seven (90%) patients and 32 (86.5%) relatives attended at least five sessions. The mean group size was 8.1 (SD=1.3; range 6-10). All elements of the intervention were offered to participants, except for one e-Health tool which was only available at the start of the study. Overall, the sessions were considered useful by patients, their relatives and facilitators. The participation of a relative (social support) and sharing ideas and feelings about having epilepsy with peers (peer support) were rated as important aspects. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation revealed that the MCI was largely performed according to protocol, attendance rate was high, and participants and facilitators had, on the whole, a favourable opinion about the MCI, and would recommend it to others with epilepsy and their relatives. Overall, the adherence of patients and relatives was high. The MCI is considered feasible according to patients, relatives and facilitators. Implementation is recommended if the intervention proves to be effective.

An economic evaluation of the ketogenic diet versus care as usual in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy: An interim analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into the cost-effectiveness of the ketogenic (KD) diet compared with care as usual (CAU) in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy, we conducted an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, alongside a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants from a tertiary epilepsy center were randomized into KD (intervention) group or CAU (control) group. Seizure frequency, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs, production losses of parents and patient, and family costs were assessed at baseline and during a 4-month study period and compared between the intervention and control groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e., cost per QALY and cost per responder), and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were calculated and presented. RESULTS: In total, 48 children were included in the analyses of this study (26 KD group). At 4 months, 50% of the participants in the KD group had a seizure reduction ≥50% from baseline, compared with 18.2 of the participants in the CAU group. The mean costs per patient in the CAU group were €15,245 compared to €20,986 per patient in the KD group, resulting in an ICER of €18,044 per responder. We failed, however, to measure any benefits in terms of QALYs and therefore, the cost per QALY rise high above any acceptable ceiling ratio. It might be that the quality of life instruments used in this study were not sufficiently sensitive to detect changes, or it might be that being a clinical responder is not sufficient to improve a patient's quality of life. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses and nonparametric bootstrapping were performed and demonstrated the robustness of our results. SIGNIFICANCE: The results show that the KD reduces seizure frequency. The study did not find any improvements in quality of life and, therefore, unfavorable cost per QALY ratio's resulted.

Are people with epilepsy using eHealth-tools?

INTRODUCTION: Self-management for people with epilepsy (PWE) should lead to shared decision-making and thus to adherence to the treatment plan. eHealth is an important way of supporting PWE in their self-management. METHOD: In this survey, we used a mixed method to explore the following: 1) which factors were monitored by PWE and how (using pen and paper or eHealth-tools), 2) how many PWE own a computer or smartphone, and 3) how do they perceive the use of eHealth. A consecutive series of 1000 PWE attending the outpatient clinic of a tertiary epilepsy center were asked to fill in a questionnaire. RESULTS: In comparison with the general population, fewer PWE owned a computer or smartphone. They were, however, more likely to self-monitor their health than other patients suffering from a chronic condition. Although PWE did not use eHealth-tools often, they perceived it as a user-friendly tool, promoting health behavior as well as adherence. On the other hand, problems with privacy and the perception that not everyone is able to use eHealth were considered as disadvantages by PWE. Promoting self-care was perceived as both an advantage and a disadvantage. It was seen as an advantage when PWE mentioned the option of eHealth-tools in order to gain insight into one's epilepsy. At the same time, it was seen as a disadvantage because it confronts PWE with their disease, which causes emotional stress. CONCLUSION: The high level of self-monitoring combined with a low usage of eHealth-tools seems to indicate that there is a need for a more tailored approach to stimulate the use of eHealth-tools by PWE. Further research should focus on this aspect, e.g., what PWE need in order to make more use of eHealth-tools in their self-care.

A roadmap for applying machine learning when working with privacy-sensitive data: predicting non-response to treatment for eating disorders.

OBJECTIVES: Applying machine-learning methodology to clinical data could present a promising avenue for predicting outcomes in patients receiving treatment for psychiatric disorders. However, preserving privacy when working with patient data remains a critical concern. METHODS: In showcasing how machine-learning can be used to build a clinically relevant prediction model on clinical data, we apply two commonly used machine-learning algorithms (Random Forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) to routine outcome monitoring data collected from 593 patients with eating disorders to predict absence of reliable improvement 12 months after entering outpatient treatment. RESULTS: An RF model trained on data collected at baseline and after three months made 31.3% fewer errors in predicting lack of reliable improvement at 12 months, in comparison with chance. Adding data from a six-month follow-up resulted in only marginal improvements to accuracy. CONCLUSION: We were able to build and validate a model that could aid clinicians and researchers in more accurately predicting treatment response in patients with EDs. We also demonstrated how this could be done without compromising privacy. ML presents a promising approach to developing accurate prediction models for psychiatric disorders such as ED.

Risk stratification for treating people at ultra-high risk for psychosis: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

People who are at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis receive clinical care with the aim to prevent first-episode psychosis (FEP), regardless of the risk of conversion to psychosis. An economic model from the Canadian health system perspective was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating all with UHR compared to risk stratification over a 15-year time horizon, based on conversion probability, expected quality-of-life and costs. The analysis used a decision tree followed by a Markov model. Health states included: Not UHR, UHR with <20 % risk of conversion to FEP (based on the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study risk calculator), UHR with ≥20 % risk, FEP, Remission, Post-FEP, and Death. The analysis found that: risk stratification (i.e., only treating those with ≥20 % risk) had lower costs ($1398) and quality-adjusted life-years (0.055 QALYs) per person compared to treating all. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 'treat all' was $25,448/QALY, and suggests treating all may be cost-effective. The model was sensitive to changes to the probability of conversion.

Assessment of Quality of Life 8-Dimension (AQoL-8D): translation, validation, and application in two Dutch trials in patients with epilepsy and schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: To translate and linguistically validate the Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimensions (AQoL-8D) for use in the Netherlands and to compare the psychometric properties of AQoL-8D with the EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) in two patient samples. METHODS: AQoL-8D was translated from English into Dutch. The translated AQoL-8D was then administered alongside the EQ-5D-5L at baseline and follow-up of two Dutch randomized controlled trials among patients with epilepsy and schizophrenia. These data were subjected to a post-hoc analysis assessing the psychometric properties of AQol-8D vis-à-vis EQ-5D-5L in terms of known-groups construct validity, responsiveness, and floor/ceiling effects. RESULTS: In total, 103 epilepsy patients and 99 schizophrenia patients were included in this study. In both datasets, the two instruments discriminated between known-groups, but in schizophrenia, AQoL-8D showed higher responsiveness than EQ-5D-5L, while both instruments showed equal responsiveness in epilepsy. Ceiling effects were only found for EQ-5D-5L in both epilepsy (26.6%) and schizophrenia (6.1%). CONCLUSION: Our results have shown that, among other things, AQoL-8D presents better ability to discriminate between known-groups and shows no ceiling effect. Based on our results, we would recommend the use of AQoL-8D in addition to EQ-5D-5L in trials assessing patient's quality of life in patients with epilepsy or schizophrenia.

Mapping of the World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 to disability weights using the Multi-Country Survey Study on Health and Responsiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and test an internationally applicable mapping function for converting WHODAS-2.0 scores to disability weights, thereby enabling WHODAS-2.0 to be used in cost-utility analyses and sectoral decision-making. METHODS: Data from 14 countries were used from the WHO Multi-Country Survey Study on Health and Responsiveness, administered among nationally representative samples of respondents aged 18+ years who were non-institutionalized and living in private households. For the combined total of 92,006 respondents, available WHODAS-2.0 items (for both 36-item and 12-item versions) were mapped onto disability weight estimates using a machine learning approach, whereby data were split into separate training and test sets; cross-validation was used to compare the performance of different regression and penalized regression models. Sensitivity analyses considered different imputation strategies and compared overall model performance with that of country-specific models. RESULTS: Mapping functions converted WHODAS-2.0 scores into disability weights; R-squared values of 0.700-0.754 were obtained for the test data set. Penalized regression models reached comparable performance to standard regression models but with fewer predictors. Imputation had little impact on model performance. Model performance of the generic model on country-specific test sets was comparable to model performance of country-specific models. CONCLUSIONS: Disability weights can be generated with good accuracy using WHODAS 2.0 scores, including in national settings where health state valuations are not directly available, which signifies the utility of WHODAS as an outcome measure in evaluative studies that express intervention benefits in terms of QALYs gained.

Factors influencing short-term effectiveness and efficiency of the care provided by Dutch general practice mental health professionals.

Introduction: This study examined whether factors related to general practice mental health professionals (GP-MHPs), that is, characteristics of the professional, the function, and the care provided, were associated with short-term effectiveness and efficiency of the care provided by GP-MHPs to adults in Dutch general practice. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted among 320 adults with anxiety or depressive symptoms who had an intake consultation with GP-MHPs (n = 64). Effectiveness was measured in terms of change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) 3 months after intake; and efficiency in terms of net monetary benefit (NMB) at 3-month follow-up. A range of GP-MHP-related predictors and patient-related confounders was considered. Results: Patients gained on average 0.022 QALYs at 3-month follow-up. The mean total costs per patient during the 3-month follow-up period (€3,864; 95% confidence interval [CI]: €3,196-€4,731) decreased compared to that during the 3 months before intake (€5,220; 95% CI: €4,639-€5,925), resulting largely from an increase in productivity. Providing mindfulness and/or relaxation exercises was associated with QALY decrement. Having longer work experience as a GP-MHP (≥2 years) and having 10-20 years of work experience as a mental health care professional were negatively associated with NMB. Furthermore, a higher number of homework exercises tended to be related to less efficient care. Finally, being self-employed and being seconded from an organization in which primary care and mental health care organizations collaborate were related to a positive NMB, while being seconded from a mental health organization tended towards such a relationship. Conclusions: Findings seem to imply that the care provided by GP-MHPs contributes to improving patients' functioning. Some GP-MHP-related characteristics appear to influence short-term effectiveness and efficiency of the care provided. Further research is needed to confirm and better explain these findings and to examine longer-term effects.

Towards community-based and recovery-oriented care for severe mental disorders in Southern and Eastern Europe: aims and design of a multi-country implementation and evaluation study (RECOVER-E).

BACKGROUND: Substantial strides have been made around the world in reforming mental health systems by shifting away from institutional care towards community-based services. Despite an extensive evidence base on what constitutes effective care for people with severe mental ill-health, many people in Europe do not have access to optimal mental health care. In an effort to consolidate previous efforts to improve community mental health care and support the complex transition from hospital-based to community-based care delivery, the RECOVER-E (LaRge-scalE implementation of COmmunity based mental health care for people with seVere and Enduring mental ill health in EuRopE) project aims to implement and evaluate multidisciplinary community mental health teams in five countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This paper provides a brief overview of the RECOVER-E project and its methods. METHODS: Five implementation sites were selected (Sofia, Bulgaria; Zagreb, Croatia; Skopje, North Macedonia; Kotor, Montenegro; Siret-Suceava, Romania) where hospital-based mental health services are available (care as usual, CAU) for patients with severe mental disorders (severe depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia). The intervention consists of the introduction of a new service delivery model in each site, consisting of community-based recovery-oriented care delivered by trained multidisciplinary community mental health teams (including a peer worker with lived experience of a severe mental disorder). The implementation outcomes of the teams and the effect of the team's approach on patient and service utilisation outcomes will be evaluated using a mix of research methods. The study includes five planned hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials (1 per site) with patient-level randomization (n = 180, with patients randomised to either care as usual or intervention condition). Effectiveness is evaluated using a pragmatic non-blinded design with patients randomised into two parallel groups: receiving new community-based care or receiving usual care in the form of institutional, hospital-based mental health care. Trial-based health economic evaluation will be conducted; implementation outcomes will be evaluated, with data aligned with dimensions from the RE-AIM framework. Pathways to sustaining project results will be developed through policy dialogue sessions, which will be carried out in each country and through ongoing policy engagement activities at the European level. DISCUSSION: The RECOVER-E project has been developed and conducted to demonstrate the impact of implementing an evidence-based service delivery model for people with severe mental illness in different contexts in middle-income countries in Central and Eastern Europe. It is expected that the results will contribute to the growing evidence-base on the health and economic benefits of recovery-oriented and community-based service models for health systems in transition.Trial registration Each trial was registered before participant enrolment in the clinicaltrials.gov database: Site-Croatia, Zagreb (Trial Reg. No. NCT03862209); Montenegro, Kotor (Trial Reg. No. NCT03837340); Romania, Suceava (Trial Reg. No. NCT03884933); Macedonia, Skopje (Trial Reg. No. NCT03892473); Bulgaria, Sofia (Trial Reg. No. NCT03922425).

Sustainability of Community-Based Specialized Mental Health Services in Five European Countries: Protocol for Five Randomized Controlled Trial-Based Health-Economic Evaluations Embedded in the RECOVER-E Program.

BACKGROUND: Community-based recovery-oriented mental health services for people with severe mental disorders have not been fully implemented in Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Romania. The RECOVER-E project facilitates the implementation of specialized mental health care delivered by setting up services, implementing the services, and evaluating multidisciplinary community mental health teams. The outcomes of the RECOVER-E project are assessed in a trial-based outcome evaluation in each of the participating countries with a health-economic evaluation linked to these trials. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this protocol paper is to describe the methodology that will be used for the health-economic evaluation alongside the trials. METHODS: Implementation sites have been selected in each of the five countries where hospital-based mental health services are available (care as usual [CAU]) for patients with severe mental disorders (severe depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders). The newly implemented health care system will involve community-based recovery-oriented mental health care (CMHC). At each site, 180 consenting patients will be randomized to either CAU or CMHC. Patient-level outcomes are personal and social functioning and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Data on participants' health care use will be collected and corresponding health care costs will be computed. This enables evaluation of health care costs of CMHC as compared with CAU, and these costs can be related to patient-level outcomes (functioning and QALY gains) in health-economic evaluation. RESULTS: Data collection was started in December 2018 (Croatia), February 2019 (Montenegro), April 2019 (Romania), June 2019 (North Macedonia), and October 2019 (Bulgaria). The findings of the outcome evaluations will be reported for each of the five countries separately, and the five trials will be pooled for multilevel analysis on a combined dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the health-economic evaluation of the RECOVER-E project will contribute to the growing evidence base on the health and economic benefits of recovery-oriented and community-based service models for health systems in transition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (1) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03922425 (Bulgaria); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03922425 (2) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03862209 (Croatia); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03862209 (3) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03892473 (Macedonia); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03892473 (4) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03837340 (Montenegro); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03837340 (5) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03884933 (Romania); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03884933. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17454.

Designing and Testing of a Health-Economic Markov Model for Prevention and Treatment of Early Psychosis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to report on the design of a model to determine the cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment of early psychosis (PsyMod) and to estimate ten-year cost-effectiveness and budget impact of interventions targeting individuals with ultra-high risk (UHR) of developing psychosis or with first episode psychosis (FEP). METHODS: PsyMod was built in parallel with the development of a new standard of care for treatment of early psychosis in the Netherlands. PsyMod is a state-transition cohort simulation model and considers six health states, namely ultra-high risk of psychosis (UHR), FEP, post-FEP, no-UHR, recovery/remission, and death. Results are expressed as total healthcare costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and budget impact. RESULTS: PsyMod was used to extrapolate budget impact and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for preventing FEP for individuals at UHR of psychosis (CBTuhr) compared to care as usual. CBTuhr resulted in a per-patient increase of 0.06 QALYs and a per patient cost reduction of €654 (dominant ICER) with a reduction in 5-year healthcare costs of €1,002,166. CONCLUSIONS: PsyMod can be used to examine cost-effectiveness and budget impact of interventions targeting prevention and treatment of FEP and is freely available for academic purposes upon request by the authors.