Health-Economic Evaluation of Psychological Interventions for Anxiety Prevention: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Although evidence supports the effectiveness of psychological interventions for prevention of anxiety, little is known about their cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of health-economic evaluations of psychological interventions for anxiety prevention. METHODS: PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluations Database, NHS Health Technology Assessment, and OpenGrey databases were searched electronically on December 23, 2022. Included studies focused on economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions to prevent anxiety. Study data were extracted, and the quality of the selected studies was assessed by using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: All included studies (N=5) had economic evaluations that were considered to be of good quality. In two studies, the interventions showed favorable cost-effectiveness compared with usual care groups. In one study, the intervention was not cost-effective. Findings from another study cast doubt on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in the remaining study could not be established. CONCLUSIONS: Although the findings suggest some preliminary evidence of cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for preventing anxiety, they were limited by the small number of included studies. Additional research on the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for anxiety in different countries and populations is required.

Health-economic evaluation of psychological interventions for depression prevention: Systematic review.

Psychological interventions have been proven to be effective to prevent depression, however, little is known on the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for the prevention of depression in various populations. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Econlit, NHS Economic Evaluations Database, NHS Health Technology Assessment and OpenGrey up to January 2021. Only health-economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions to prevent depression were included. Independent evaluators selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Twelve trial-based economic evaluations including 5929 participants from six different countries met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the quality of most economic evaluations was considered good, but some studies have some risk of bias. Setting the willingness-to-pay upper limit to US$40,000 (2018 prices) for gaining one quality adjusted life year (QALY), eight psychological preventive interventions were likely to be cost-effective compared to care as usual. The likelihood of preventive psychological interventions being more cost-effective than care as usual looks promising, but more economic evaluations are needed to bridge the many gaps that remain in the evidence-base. ETHICS: As this systematic review is based on published data, approval from the local ethics committee was not required.

Complex multiple risk intervention to promote healthy behaviours in people between 45 to 75 years attended in primary health care (EIRA study): study protocol for a hybrid trial.

BACKGROUND: Health promotion is a key process of current health systems. Primary Health Care (PHC) is the ideal setting for health promotion but multifaceted barriers make its integration difficult in the usual care. The majority of the adult population engages two or more risk behaviours, that is why a multiple intervention might be more effective and efficient. The primary objectives are to evaluate the effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness and an implementation strategy of a complex multiple risk intervention to promote healthy behaviours in people between 45 to 75 years attended in PHC. METHODS: This study is a cluster randomised controlled hybrid type 2 trial with two parallel groups comparing a complex multiple risk behaviour intervention with usual care. It will be carried out in 26 PHC centres in Spain. The study focuses on people between 45 and 75 years who carry out two or more of the following unhealthy behaviours: tobacco use, low adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern or insufficient physical activity level. The intervention is based on the Transtheoretical Model and it will be made by physicians and nurses in the routine care of PHC practices according to the conceptual framework of the "5A's". It will have a maximum duration of 12 months and it will be carried out to three different levels (individual, group and community). Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained measured by the tariffs of the EuroQol-5D questionnaire will be estimated. The implementation strategy is based on the "Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research", a set of discrete implementation strategies and an evaluation framework. DISCUSSION: EIRA study will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex multiple risk intervention and will provide a better understanding of implementation processes of health promotion interventions in PHC setting. It may contribute to increase knowledge about the individual and structural barriers that affect implementation of these interventions and to quantify the contextual factors that moderate the effectiveness of implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03136211 .Retrospectively registered on May 2, 2017.

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months. RESULTS: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010.

Preventing the onset of major depression based on the level and profile of risk of primary care attendees: protocol of a cluster randomised trial (the predictD-CCRT study).

BACKGROUND: The 'predictD algorithm' provides an estimate of the level and profile of risk of the onset of major depression in primary care attendees. This gives us the opportunity to develop interventions to prevent depression in a personalized way. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a new intervention, personalized and implemented by family physicians (FPs), to prevent the onset of episodes of major depression. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT), with cluster assignment by health center and two parallel arms. Two interventions will be applied by FPs, usual care versus the new intervention predictD-CCRT. The latter has four components: a training workshop for FPs; communicating the level and profile of risk of depression; building up a tailored bio-psycho-family-social intervention by FPs to prevent depression; offering a booklet to prevent depression; and activating and empowering patients. We will recruit a systematic random sample of 3286 non-depressed adult patients (1643 in each trial arm), nested in 140 FPs and 70 health centers from 7 Spanish cities. All patients will be evaluated at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. The level and profile of risk of depression will be communicated to patients by the FPs in the intervention practices at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Our primary outcome will be the cumulative incidence of major depression (measured by CIDI each 6 months) over 18 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (SF-12 and EuroQol), and measurements of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The inferences will be made at patient level. We shall undertake an intention-to-treat effectiveness analysis and will handle missing data using multiple imputations. We will perform multi-level logistic regressions and will adjust for the probability of the onset of major depression at 12 months measured at baseline as well as for unbalanced variables if appropriate. The economic evaluation will be approached from two perspectives, societal and health system. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT of universal primary prevention for depression in adults and the first to test a personalized intervention implemented by FPs. We discuss possible biases as well as other limitations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01151982.

Predicting the onset and persistence of episodes of depression in primary health care. The predictD-Spain study: methodology.

BACKGROUND: The effects of putative risk factors on the onset and/or persistence of depression remain unclear. We aim to develop comprehensive models to predict the onset and persistence of episodes of depression in primary care. Here we explain the general methodology of the predictD-Spain study and evaluate the reliability of the questionnaires used. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. A systematic random sample of general practice attendees aged 18 to 75 has been recruited in seven Spanish provinces. Depression is being measured with the CIDI at baseline, and at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. A set of individual, environmental, genetic, professional and organizational risk factors are to be assessed at each follow-up point. In a separate reliability study, a proportional random sample of 401 participants completed the test-retest (251 researcher-administered and 150 self-administered) between October 2005 and February 2006. We have also checked 118,398 items for data entry from a random sample of 480 patients stratified by province. RESULTS: All items and questionnaires had good test-retest reliability for both methods of administration, except for the use of recreational drugs over the previous six months. Cronbach's alphas were good and their factorial analyses coherent for the three scales evaluated (social support from family and friends, dissatisfaction with paid work, and dissatisfaction with unpaid work). There were 191 (0.16%) data entry errors. CONCLUSION: The items and questionnaires were reliable and data quality control was excellent. When we eventually obtain our risk index for the onset and persistence of depression, we will be able to determine the individual risk of each patient evaluated in primary health care.

Emotional profile of physicians who interview frequent attenders.

Seventy-five physicians at primary health care centers in Spain described their emotions and thoughts during interviews with frequent attenders. Emotion scales were developed by factor and reliability analysis. Positive emotions were associated with younger physician age and with the thought "This patient really needs me." Feelings of lack of control were associated with rural centers and with the thoughts "Oh my God, him/her again!" and "This patient is really a pain." Anxiogenic emotions were associated with greater workload, requests for tests, requests to see the doctor outside regular hours, and the thoughts "Oh my God, him/her again!" and "I think this patient is trying to use me." Guilt feelings were associated with a lower perceived ability to solve the patient's problem, and with a poor physician-patients relationship. Sadness was associated with more frequent referrals to specialists. Awareness and acceptance of their emotions may improve physicians' emotional intelligence and physician-patient relationships.