» Articles » PMID: 37096868

Psychiatric Advance Directives Facilitated by Peer Workers Among People with Mental Illness: Economic Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial (DAiP Study)

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of psychiatric advance directives (PAD) facilitated by peer workers (PW-PAD) in the management of patients with mental disorders in France.

Methods: In a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned adults with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder or schizoaffective disorders, who were compulsorily hospitalized in the past 12 months, to either fill out a PAD form and meet a peer worker for facilitation or receive usual care. We assessed differences in societal costs in euros (€) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a year-long follow-up to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the PW-PAD strategy. We conducted multiple sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our results.

Results: Among the 394 randomized participants, 196 were assigned to the PW-PAD group and 198 to the control group. Psychiatric inpatient costs were lower in the PW-PAD group than the control group (relative risk, -0.22; 95% confidence interval, [-0.33 to -0.11];  < 0.001), and 1-year cumulative savings were obtained for the PW-PAD group (mean difference, -€4,286 [-4,711 to -4,020]). Twelve months after PW-PAD implementation, we observed improved health utilities (difference, 0.040 [0.003-0.077];  = 0.032). Three deaths occurred. QALYs were higher in the PW-PAD group (difference, 0.045 [0.040-0.046]). In all sensitivity analyses, taking into account sampling uncertainty and unit variable variation, PW-PAD was likely to remain a cost-effective use of resources.

Conclusion: PW-PAD was strictly dominant, that is, less expensive and more effective compared with usual care for people living with mental illness.

Citing Articles

Joint Crisis Plan in Mental Health Settings: A Reflective Process More than an Intervention Tool?.

Goulet M, Sergerie-Richard S, Dostie M, Drouin J, Vigneault L, Genest C Healthcare (Basel). 2025; 12(24.

PMID: 39765959 PMC: 11675284. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12242532.


Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health.

Francis C, Hazelton M, Wilson R Health Expect. 2024; 27(6):e70134.

PMID: 39711033 PMC: 11664045. DOI: 10.1111/hex.70134.


Advance statements in mental healthcare: time to close the evidence to practice gap.

Lasalvia A, Patuzzo S, Braun E, Henderson C Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2023; 32:e68.

PMID: 38053411 PMC: 10803188. DOI: 10.1017/S2045796023000835.

References
1.
Dimitri G, Giacco D, Bauer M, Bird V, Greenberg L, Lasalvia A . Predictors of length of stay in psychiatric inpatient units: Does their effect vary across countries?. Eur Psychiatry. 2018; 48:6-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.11.001. View

2.
Latimer E, Rabouin D, Cao Z, Ly A, Powell G, Aubry T . Costs of services for homeless people with mental illness in 5 Canadian cities: a large prospective follow-up study. CMAJ Open. 2017; 5(3):E576-E585. PMC: 5621955. DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20170018. View

3.
Barrett B, Waheed W, Farrelly S, Birchwood M, Dunn G, Flach C . Randomised controlled trial of joint crisis plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: economic outcomes. PLoS One. 2013; 8(11):e74210. PMC: 3839936. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074210. View

4.
Ruchlewska A, Wierdsma A, Kamperman A, van der Gaag M, Smulders R, Roosenschoon B . Effect of crisis plans on admissions and emergency visits: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2014; 9(3):e91882. PMC: 3960137. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091882. View

5.
van Buuren S . Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007; 16(3):219-42. DOI: 10.1177/0962280206074463. View