» Articles » PMID: 29471877

A Personalized Intervention to Prevent Depression in Primary Care: Cost-effectiveness Study Nested into a Clustered Randomized Trial

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of a universal personalized intervention for the prevention of anxiety disorders: Protocol of a randomized controlled trial (the prevANS project).

Moreno-Peral P, Rodriguez-Morejon A, Bellon J, Garcia-Huercano C, Martinez-Vispo C, Campos-Paino H Internet Interv. 2023; 34:100640.

PMID: 38023964 PMC: 10630113. DOI: 10.1016/j.invent.2023.100640.


Structured communication methods for mental health consultations in primary care: a scoping review.

Mosler F, Packer K, Jerome L, Bird V BMC Prim Care. 2023; 24(1):175.

PMID: 37661251 PMC: 10476363. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-023-02129-y.


A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care based on risk predictive algorithms and decision support systems: protocol of the e-predictD study.

Bellon J, Rodriguez-Morejon A, Conejo-Ceron S, Campos-Paino H, Rodriguez-Bayon A, Ballesta-Rodriguez M Front Psychiatry. 2023; 14:1163800.

PMID: 37333911 PMC: 10275079. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1163800.


Experiences of treatment-resistant mental health conditions in primary care: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Talbot A, Lee C, Ryan S, Roberts N, Mahtani K, Albury C BMC Prim Care. 2022; 23(1):207.

PMID: 35971077 PMC: 9380292. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-022-01819-3.


Body mass index interacts with a genetic-risk score for depression increasing the risk of the disease in high-susceptibility individuals.

Anguita-Ruiz A, Zarza-Rebollo J, Perez-Gutierrez A, Molina E, Gutierrez B, Bellon J Transl Psychiatry. 2022; 12(1):30.

PMID: 35075110 PMC: 8786870. DOI: 10.1038/s41398-022-01783-7.


References
1.
Fenwick E, Byford S . A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry. 2005; 187:106-8. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.187.2.106. View

2.
Hunter R, Nazareth I, Morris S, King M . Modelling the cost-effectiveness of preventing major depression in general practice patients. Psychol Med. 2013; 44(7):1381-90. PMC: 3967840. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291713002067. View

3.
Jacka F, Reavley N, Jorm A, Toumbourou J, Lewis A, Berk M . Prevention of common mental disorders: what can we learn from those who have gone before and where do we go next?. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013; 47(10):920-9. DOI: 10.1177/0004867413493523. View

4.
van Zoonen K, Buntrock C, Ebert D, Smit F, Reynolds 3rd C, Beekman A . Preventing the onset of major depressive disorder: a meta-analytic review of psychological interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2014; 43(2):318-29. PMC: 4023317. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyt175. View

5.
Bellon J, Moreno-Peral P, Motrico E, Rodriguez-Morejon A, Fernandez A, Serrano-Blanco A . Effectiveness of psychological and/or educational interventions to prevent the onset of episodes of depression: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Prev Med. 2014; 76 Suppl:S22-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.11.003. View