Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of School-Based Treatments for Anxiety Disorders.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Golda S Ginsburg, Jeffrey E Pella, Eric Slade
{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of School-Based Treatments for Anxiety Disorders.","authors":"Golda S Ginsburg,&nbsp;Jeffrey E Pella,&nbsp;Eric Slade","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>School-based treatments for anxiety disorders are needed to address barriers to accessing community-based services. A key question for school administers are the costs related to these treatments.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>This study examined the cost-effectiveness of a school-based modular cognitive behavioral therapy (M-CBT) for pediatric anxiety disorders compared to school-based treatment as usual (TAU).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-two school-based clinicians in Maryland and Connecticut were randomized (37 in CBT; 25 in TAU), trained, and enrolled at least one anxious student (148 students in CBT; 68 in TAU). Students (N = 216) were ages 6-18 (mean age 10.9); 63.9% were non-Hispanic White race-ethnicity; and 48.6% were female. Independent evaluators (IEs) assessed outcomes at post treatment and at a one-year follow up. Anxiety related costs included mental health care expenses and the opportunity costs of added caregiver time and missed school days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall M-CBT ICER value of $6917/QALY reflected both lower costs for days absent from school (mean difference: $--117 per youth; p = 0.045) but also lower QALY ratings (mean difference: -0.024; p = 0.900) compared with usual school counseling. Among youth with more severe anxiety at baseline, M-CBT had a more favorable ICER ($-22,846/QALY). Other mental health care costs were similar between groups (mean difference: $-90 per youth; p = 0.328).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Although training school clinicians in M-CBT resulted in lower costs for school absences, evidence for the cost effectiveness of a modular CBT relative to existing school treatment for pediatric anxiety disorders was not robustly supported. Findings suggest school-based M-CBT is most cost effective for youth with the highest levels of anxiety severity and that M-CBT could help reduce the costs of missed school. Interpretations are limited due to use of retrospective recall, lack of data on medication use, and small sample size.</p><p><strong>Implications for health care provision and use: </strong>Schools may benefit from providing specialized school-based services such as M-CBT for students with the highest levels of anxiety.</p><p><strong>Implications for health policies: </strong>Investment decisions by schools should take into account lower costs (related to school absences), the costs of training clinicians, and student access to CBT in the community.</p><p><strong>Implications for further research: </strong>Replication with a larger sample, service use diaries, and objective school and medical records over a longer period of time is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"25 3","pages":"91-103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: School-based treatments for anxiety disorders are needed to address barriers to accessing community-based services. A key question for school administers are the costs related to these treatments.

Aims of the study: This study examined the cost-effectiveness of a school-based modular cognitive behavioral therapy (M-CBT) for pediatric anxiety disorders compared to school-based treatment as usual (TAU).

Methods: Sixty-two school-based clinicians in Maryland and Connecticut were randomized (37 in CBT; 25 in TAU), trained, and enrolled at least one anxious student (148 students in CBT; 68 in TAU). Students (N = 216) were ages 6-18 (mean age 10.9); 63.9% were non-Hispanic White race-ethnicity; and 48.6% were female. Independent evaluators (IEs) assessed outcomes at post treatment and at a one-year follow up. Anxiety related costs included mental health care expenses and the opportunity costs of added caregiver time and missed school days.

Results: The overall M-CBT ICER value of $6917/QALY reflected both lower costs for days absent from school (mean difference: $--117 per youth; p = 0.045) but also lower QALY ratings (mean difference: -0.024; p = 0.900) compared with usual school counseling. Among youth with more severe anxiety at baseline, M-CBT had a more favorable ICER ($-22,846/QALY). Other mental health care costs were similar between groups (mean difference: $-90 per youth; p = 0.328).

Discussion: Although training school clinicians in M-CBT resulted in lower costs for school absences, evidence for the cost effectiveness of a modular CBT relative to existing school treatment for pediatric anxiety disorders was not robustly supported. Findings suggest school-based M-CBT is most cost effective for youth with the highest levels of anxiety severity and that M-CBT could help reduce the costs of missed school. Interpretations are limited due to use of retrospective recall, lack of data on medication use, and small sample size.

Implications for health care provision and use: Schools may benefit from providing specialized school-based services such as M-CBT for students with the highest levels of anxiety.

Implications for health policies: Investment decisions by schools should take into account lower costs (related to school absences), the costs of training clinicians, and student access to CBT in the community.

Implications for further research: Replication with a larger sample, service use diaries, and objective school and medical records over a longer period of time is warranted.

焦虑障碍校本治疗的成本-效果分析
背景:需要以学校为基础的焦虑症治疗来解决获得社区服务的障碍。学校管理者面临的一个关键问题是与这些治疗相关的费用。研究目的:本研究考察了以学校为基础的模块化认知行为疗法(M-CBT)与以学校为基础的常规治疗(TAU)相比治疗儿童焦虑症的成本效益。方法:马里兰州和康涅狄格州的62名学校临床医生随机分组(37名CBT组;25名TAU),训练并招募了至少一名焦虑学生(148名CBT学生;TAU值为68)。学生(N = 216)年龄6-18岁(平均年龄10.9岁);63.9%为非西班牙裔白人;48.6%为女性。独立评估者(IEs)评估了治疗后和一年随访的结果。与焦虑相关的成本包括心理健康护理费用、增加照顾时间和错过上学时间的机会成本。结果:M-CBT的总体ICER值为6917美元/QALY,反映了缺课天数的成本降低(平均差异:每个青少年$- 117;p = 0.045),但QALY评分也较低(平均差异:-0.024;P = 0.900)。在基线焦虑更严重的青少年中,M-CBT具有更有利的ICER(-22,846美元/QALY)。各组之间的其他精神卫生保健费用相似(平均差异:每个青少年-90美元;P = 0.328)。讨论:尽管对学校临床医生进行M-CBT培训可以降低缺课的成本,但相对于现有的儿童焦虑症学校治疗,模块化CBT的成本效益的证据并没有得到强有力的支持。研究结果表明,以学校为基础的M-CBT对焦虑严重程度最高的青少年来说是最具成本效益的,并且M-CBT可以帮助减少失学的成本。由于使用回顾性召回、缺乏药物使用数据和样本量小,解释有限。对卫生保健提供和使用的影响:学校可能受益于为焦虑程度最高的学生提供专门的校本服务,如M-CBT。对卫生政策的影响:学校的投资决策应考虑到较低的成本(与缺课有关)、培训临床医生的成本以及学生在社区中获得CBT的机会。对进一步研究的启示:有必要对更大的样本、服务使用日记以及更长期的客观学校和医疗记录进行复制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信