Cost-utility of a specific collaborative group intervention for patients with functional somatic syndromes

• Verfasst von: Konnopka, Alexander [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Kaufmann, Claudia [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Wild, Beate [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Szecsenyi, Joachim [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Herzog, Wolfgang [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Schellberg, Dieter [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Schäfert, Rainer [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Cost-utility of a specific collaborative group intervention for patients with functional somatic syndromes
• Verf.angabe: Alexander Konnopka Dr., Hans-Helmut König Prof., Claudia Kaufmann Dr., Nina Egger Dr., Beate Wild Prof., Joachim Szecsenyi Prof., Wolfgang Herzog Prof., Dieter Schellberg Dipl.-Psych., Rainer Schaefert PD
• E-Jahr: 2016
• Jahr: 1 September 2016
• Umfang: 8 S.
• Teil: volume:90
• Teil: year:2016
• Teil: supplement:Supplement C
• Teil: pages:43-50
• Teil: extent:8
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 27.11.2017
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Journal of psychosomatic research
• Ort Quelle: Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1956
• Jahr Quelle: 2016
• Band/Heft Quelle: 90(2016), Supplement C, Seite 43-50
• ISSN Quelle: 1879-1360
• DOI: doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.09.001
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: Collaborative care
• Sach-SW: Cost-effectiveness
• Sach-SW: Functional somatic syndromes
• K10plus-PPN: 1565724534

Abstract

Collaborative group intervention (CGI) in patients with functional somatic syndromes (FSS) has been shown to improve mental quality of life. To analyse incremental cost-utility of CGI compared to enhanced medical care in patients with FSS. An economic evaluation alongside a cluster-randomised controlled trial was performed. 35 general practitioners (GPs) recruited 300 FSS patients. Patients in the CGI arm were offered 10 group sessions within 3months and 2 booster sessions 6 and 12months after baseline. Costs were assessed via questionnaire. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the SF-6D index, derived from the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). We calculated patients' net-monetary-benefit (NMB), estimated the treatment effect via regression, and generated cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Using intention-to-treat analysis, total costs during the 12-month study period were 5777EUR in the intervention, and 6858EUR in the control group. Controlling for possible confounders, we found a small, but significant positive intervention effect on QALYs (+0.017; p=0.019) and an insignificant cost saving resulting from a cost-increase in the control group (−10.5%; p=0.278). NMB regression showed that the probability of CGI to be cost-effective was 69% for a willingness to pay (WTP) of 0EUR/QALY, increased to 92% for a WTP of 50,000EUR/QALY and reached the level of 95% at a WTP of 70,375EUR/QALY. Subgroup analyses yielded that CGI was only cost-effective in severe somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15≥15). CGI has a high probability to be a cost-effective treatment for FSS, in particular for patients with severe somatic symptom severity.