Sustainability of Community-Based Specialized Mental Health Services in Five European Countries: Protocol for Five Randomized Controlled Trial-Based Health-Economic Evaluations Embedded in the RECOVER-E Program

Ben F M Wijnen, Filip Smit, Ana Ivičević Uhernik, Ana Istvanovic, Jovo Dedovic, Roumyana Dinolova, Raluca Nica, Robert Velickovski, Michel Wensing, Ionela Petrea, Laura Shields-Zeeman, Ben F M Wijnen, Filip Smit, Ana Ivičević Uhernik, Ana Istvanovic, Jovo Dedovic, Roumyana Dinolova, Raluca Nica, Robert Velickovski, Michel Wensing, Ionela Petrea, Laura Shields-Zeeman

Abstract

Background: Community-based recovery-oriented mental health services for people with severe mental disorders have not been fully implemented in Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Romania. The RECOVER-E project facilitates the implementation of specialized mental health care delivered by setting up services, implementing the services, and evaluating multidisciplinary community mental health teams. The outcomes of the RECOVER-E project are assessed in a trial-based outcome evaluation in each of the participating countries with a health-economic evaluation linked to these trials.

Objective: The aim of this protocol paper is to describe the methodology that will be used for the health-economic evaluation alongside the trials.

Methods: Implementation sites have been selected in each of the five countries where hospital-based mental health services are available (care as usual [CAU]) for patients with severe mental disorders (severe depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders). The newly implemented health care system will involve community-based recovery-oriented mental health care (CMHC). At each site, 180 consenting patients will be randomized to either CAU or CMHC. Patient-level outcomes are personal and social functioning and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Data on participants' health care use will be collected and corresponding health care costs will be computed. This enables evaluation of health care costs of CMHC as compared with CAU, and these costs can be related to patient-level outcomes (functioning and QALY gains) in health-economic evaluation.

Results: Data collection was started in December 2018 (Croatia), February 2019 (Montenegro), April 2019 (Romania), June 2019 (North Macedonia), and October 2019 (Bulgaria). The findings of the outcome evaluations will be reported for each of the five countries separately, and the five trials will be pooled for multilevel analysis on a combined dataset.

Conclusions: The results of the health-economic evaluation of the RECOVER-E project will contribute to the growing evidence base on the health and economic benefits of recovery-oriented and community-based service models for health systems in transition.

Trial registration: (1) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03922425 (Bulgaria); https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03922425 (2) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03862209 (Croatia); https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03862209 (3) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03892473 (Macedonia); https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03892473 (4) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03837340 (Montenegro); https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03837340 (5) ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03884933 (Romania); https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03884933.

International registered report identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/17454.

Keywords: community-based mental health care; cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-utility analysis; economic evaluation; mental health.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Ben F M Wijnen, Filip Smit, Ana Ivičević Uhernik, Ana Istvanovic, Jovo Dedovic, Roumyana Dinolova, Raluca Nica, Robert Velickovski, Michel Wensing, Ionela Petrea, Laura Shields-Zeeman. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 01.06.2020.

References

    1. van Veldhuizen JR. FACT: a Dutch version of ACT. Community Ment Health J. 2007 Aug;43(4):421–33. doi: 10.1007/s10597-007-9089-4.
    1. Drukker M, Maarschalkerweerd M, Bak M, Driessen G, à Campo J, de Bie A, Poddighe G, van Os J, Delespaul P. A real-life observational study of the effectiveness of FACT in a Dutch mental health region. BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Dec 04;8(1) doi: 10.1186/1471-244x-8-93.
    1. RECOVER-E. [2020-05-08].
    1. Rosen A, Killaspy H, Harvey C. Specialisation and marginalisation: how the assertive community treatment debate affects individuals with complex mental health needs. Psychiatrist. 2018 Jan 02;37(11):345–348. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.113.044537.
    1. . [2020-05-08].
    1. Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos J, Almansa J, Nieto M, Chatterji S, Vilagut G, Alonso J, Cieza A, Svetskova O, Burger H, Racca V, Francescutti C, Vieta E, Kostanjsek N, Raggi A, Leonardi M, Ferrer M, MHADIE consortium Validation of the "World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2" in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 May 19;8(1):51. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-51.
    1. Üstün T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
    1. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001 Jul 08;33(5):337–43. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087.
    1. Rupel V, Ogorevc M. The EQ-5D health states value set for Slovenia. Slovenian Journal of Public Health. 2012;51(2):128–140.
    1. Hakkaart-van RL, Straten A, Tiemens B, Donker M. Handleiding Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric illness (TiC-P) Institute of Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA) 2002
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Blackmer W. Information Law Group, InfoLawGroup LLP. 2016. [2020-05-12]. GDPR: Getting Ready for the New EU General Data Protection Regulation .
    1. Mander A. SAMPSI_MCC: Stata module to calculate Sample Size or Power for Matched Case-Control Studies. Statistical Software Components. 2005 Oct 27;:2006.
    1. Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Rehm J, Kennedy C, Epping-Jordan J, Saxena S, von Korff M, Pull C. Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull. World Health Organ. 2010 May 20;88(11):815–823. doi: 10.2471/blt.09.067231.
    1. Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual. Manchester, England: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013. [2019-12-05]. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 .
    1. Goeree R, O'Brien BJ, Blackhouse G, Agro K, Goering P. The valuation of productivity costs due to premature mortality: a comparison of the human-capital and friction-cost methods for schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry. 1999 Jun 23;44(5):455–63. doi: 10.1177/070674379904400505.
    1. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld B, van Roijen L. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. Journal of Health Economics. 1995 Jun;14(2):171–189. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(94)00044-5.
    1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2018. [2019-12-05]. Prices and purchasing power parities (PPP)
    1. Brand J, van Buuren S, le Cessie S, van den Hout W. Combining multiple imputation and bootstrap in the analysis of cost-effectiveness trial data. Stat Med. 2019 Jan 30;38(2):210–220. doi: 10.1002/sim.7956.
    1. Manca A, Palmer S. Handling missing data in patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis alongside randomised clinical trials. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(2):65–75. doi: 10.2165/00148365-200504020-00001.
    1. White IR, Carlin JB. Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis for missing covariate values. Stat Med. 2010 Dec 10;29(28):2920–31. doi: 10.1002/sim.3944.
    1. Glick H, Doshi J, Sonnad S, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
    1. Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, Oppe S, Badia X, Busschbach J, Buxton M, Dolan P, Kind P, Krabbe P, Ohinmaa A, Parkin D, Roset M, Sintonen H, Tsuchiya A, de Charro F. A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. Results from a six-country study. Eur J Health Econ. 2003 Sep 1;4(3):222–31. doi: 10.1007/s10198-003-0182-5.
    1. Ghosh D, Vogt A. Outliers: An evaluation of methodologies. Joint Statistical Meetings. 2012 Jan 01; doi: 10.1002/9780470749296.ch7.
    1. Zorginstituut Nederland. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland. Den Haag: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015. Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg.
    1. Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D, CONSORT Group CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010 Mar 24;8:18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18.
    1. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E, CHEERS Task Force Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013 Mar 25;11(1):6. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-11-6.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4(1):50. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. RECOVER-E. [2020-05-08]. .
    1. Patsopoulos NA. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(2):217–24.
    1. Payakachat N, Ali MM, Tilford JM. Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Nov 4;33(11):1137–54. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6.
    1. Drost RM, Paulus AT, Evers SM. Five pillars for societal perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Jan 31;:1–3. doi: 10.1017/s026646232000001x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi