Assessing Costs Using the Treatment Inventory Cost in Psychiatric Patients (TIC-P), TIC-P Mini and TIC-P Midi.

BACKGROUND: The Treatment Inventory Cost in Psychiatric patients (TIC-P) instrument is designed to measure societal costs in patients with psychiatric disorders and to be applied in economic evaluations. Efforts have been made to minimize respondents' burden by reducing the number of questions and meanwhile retaining the comprehensiveness of the instrument. Previously, a TIC-P Mini version and a TIC-P Midi version were developed and tested in a predominantly inpatient patient population. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The aims of this study are to examine the comprehensiveness of the abridged questionnaires in estimating the societal costs for patients with anxiety or depressive disorders and to assess the impact of productivity costs on the total costs. METHODS: The comprehensiveness of the abridged versions of the TIC-P was assessed in four populations: a group of primary care patients with anxiety disorders (n=175) and three groups of patients with major depressive disorders in various outpatient settings (n=140; n=125; and n=79). Comprehensiveness was measured using the proportion of total health care costs and productivity costs covered by the abridged versions compared to the full-length TIC-P. Costs were calculated according to the guidelines for costing studies using the Dutch costing manual. RESULTS: Our results showed that the TIC-P Mini covered 26%-64% of health care costs and the TIC-P Midi captured 54%-79% of health care costs. Health care costs in these populations were predominantly dispersed over primary care, outpatient hospital care, outpatient specialist care and inpatient hospital care. The TIC-P Midi and TIC-P Mini captured 22% and 0% of primary care costs respectively. In contrast, inpatient hospital care costs and outpatient specialist mental health care costs were almost fully included in the abridged versions. Costs due to lost productivity as measured by the full-length TIC-P were substantial, representing 38% to 92% of total costs. DISCUSSION: A reduction of the number of items resulted in a substantial loss in the ability to measure health care costs compared to the full-length TIC-P, because these outpatient populations consumed health care from a variety of health care providers. Two limitations of the study need to be stressed. Firstly, the number of patients in each of the four studies was relatively small. However, results were consistent over the four studies despite the small number of patients. Secondly, we did not take costs of medication into account. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: In developing mental health policy, it is important to include considerations on cost-effectiveness. Increasing the evidence on instruments to measure costs from a societal perspective may support policymakers to adopt a broader perspective. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: The TIC-P Mini is not suitable to capture health care costs in outpatients with anxiety or depressive disorders. The comprehensiveness of TIC-P Midi compared to the full-length TIC-P varied. The TIC-P Midi should therefore be revised in order to better capture costs in all patient groups.

Prevalence and course of subthreshold anxiety disorder in the general population: A three-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the prevalence, course and risk indicators of subthreshold anxiety disorder to determine the necessity and possible risk indicators for interventions. METHODS: Data were derived from the 'Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2' (NEMESIS-2), a psychiatric epidemiological cohort study among the general population (n = 4528). This study assessed prevalence, characteristics, and three-year course of subthreshold anxiety disorder (n = 521) in adults, and compared them to a no anxiety group (n = 3832) and an anxiety disorder group (n = 175). Risk indicators for persistent and progressive subthreshold anxiety disorder were also explored, including socio-demographics, vulnerability factors, psychopathology, physical health and functioning. RESULTS: The three-year prevalence of subthreshold anxiety disorder was 11.4%. At three-year follow-up, 57.3% had improved, 29.0% had persistent subthreshold anxiety disorder and 13.8% had progressed to a full-blown anxiety disorder. Prevalence, characteristics and course of subthreshold anxiety disorder were in between both comparison groups. Risk indicators for persistent course partly overlapped with those for progressive course and included vulnerability and psychopathological factors, and diminished functioning. LIMITATIONS: Course analysis were restricted to the development of anxiety disorders, other mental disorders were not assessed. Moreover, due to the naturalistic design of the study the impact of treatment on course cannot be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold anxiety disorder is relatively prevalent and at three-year follow-up a substantial part of respondents experienced persistent symptoms or had progressed into an anxiety disorder. Risk indicators like reduced functioning may help to identify these persons for (preventative) treatment and hence reduce functional limitations and disease burden.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management training for patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders: design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with anxiety or depressive disorders achieve no remission of their symptoms after evidence-based treatment algorithms. They develop a chronic course of the disorder. Current care for these patients usually consists of long-term supportive contacts with a community psychiatric nurse and pharmacological management by a psychiatrist. Data on the effectiveness of these treatments is lacking. A psychosocial rehabilitation approach, where self-management is an increasingly important part, could be more suitable. It focuses on the restoration of functioning and enhancement of patients' autonomy and responsibility. Treatment with this focus, followed by referral to primary care, may be more (cost-)effective. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial is designed for twelve participating specialized outpatient mental health services in the Netherlands. Patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders, currently receiving supportive care in specialized outpatient mental health care, are asked to participate. After inclusion, patients receive the baseline questionnaire and are randomized to the intervention group or the usual care control group. The intervention focuses on rehabilitation and self-management and is provided by a trained community psychiatric nurse, followed by referral to primary care. Measurements take place at 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline. This study evaluates both the effectiveness (on quality of life, symptom severity, and empowerment), and cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care. In addition, a questionnaire is designed to get insight in which self-management strategies patients use to manage their disorder, and in the experiences of patients with the change of care setting. DISCUSSION: In this study we evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management intervention for patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders in specialized outpatient mental health care. The results of this study may provide a first 'proof-of-concept' in this under-researched but important field, and might be relevant for a large group of patients in the context of a transition of the Dutch health care system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3335 , registered 7 March 2012.

Cost utility analysis of a collaborative stepped care intervention for panic and generalized anxiety disorders in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Generalized anxiety and panic disorders are a burden on the society because they are costly and have a significant adverse effect on quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of a collaborative stepped care intervention for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder in primary care compared to care as usual from a societal perspective. METHODS: The design of the study was a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands participated in the study. Eventually, 180 patients were included (114 collaborative stepped care, 66 care as usual). Baseline measures and follow-up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed using questionnaires. We applied the TiC-P, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and health related quality of life. RESULTS: The average annual direct medical costs in the collaborative stepped care group were 1854 Euro (95% C.I., 1726 to 1986) compared to €1503 (95% C.I., 1374 to 1664) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.05 higher in the collaborative stepped care group, leading to an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 6965 Euro per QALY. Inclusion of the productivity costs, consequently reflecting the full societal costs, decreased the ratio even more. CONCLUSION: The study showed that collaborative stepped care was a cost effective intervention for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder and was even dominant when a societal perspective was taken. TRIAL REGISTRATION: trialregister.nl, Netherlands Trial Register NTR107.

Collaborative stepped care for anxiety disorders in primary care: aims and design of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder (PD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are two of the most disabling and costly anxiety disorders seen in primary care. However, treatment quality of these disorders in primary care generally falls beneath the standard of international guidelines. Collaborative stepped care is recommended for improving treatment of anxiety disorders, but cost-effectiveness of such an intervention has not yet been assessed in primary care. This article describes the aims and design of a study that is currently underway. The aim of this study is to evaluate effects and costs of a collaborative stepped care approach in the primary care setting for patients with PD and GAD compared with care as usual. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a two armed, cluster randomized controlled trial. Care managers and their primary care practices will be randomized to deliver either collaborative stepped care (CSC) or care as usual (CAU). In the CSC group a general practitioner, care manager and psychiatrist work together in a collaborative care framework. Stepped care is provided in three steps: 1) guided self-help, 2) cognitive behavioral therapy and 3) antidepressant medication. Primary care patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD and/or GAD will be included. 134 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 1/2 SD on the primary outcome measure, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Data on anxiety symptoms, mental and physical health, quality of life, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months. DISCUSSION: It is hypothesized that the collaborative stepped care intervention will be more cost-effective than care as usual. The pragmatic design of this study will enable the researchers to evaluate what is possible in real clinical practice, rather than under ideal circumstances. Many requirements for a high quality trial are being met. Results of this study will contribute to treatment options for GAD and PD in the primary care setting. Results will become available in 2011. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR1071.