Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial

Kigozi, Jesse; Jowett, Sue; Nicholl, Barbara I.; Lewis, Martyn; Bartlam, Bernadette; Green, Daniel; Belcher, John; Clarkson, Kris; Lingard, Zoe; Pope, Christopher; Chew-Graham, Carolyn A.; Croft, Peter; Hay, Elaine; Peat, George; Mallen, Christian D.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial Thumbnail


Authors

Jesse Kigozi

Sue Jowett

Barbara I. Nicholl

Bernadette Bartlam

Daniel Green

Kris Clarkson

Zoe Lingard

Christopher Pope

Peter Croft

George Peat



Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of introducing general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression in patients consulting with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A cluster-randomised trial-based economic evaluation to assess general practitioners screening for anxiety and depression symptoms in patients consulting with OA compared to usual care (screening for pain intensity) was undertaken over a 12-month period from a UK National Health Service and Societal perspective. Patient-level mean costs and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves controlling for cluster-level data were constructed. The base-case analysis used the net-benefit regressions approach. The two-stage non-parametric sampling technique was explored in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The base-case analysis demonstrated that the intervention was as costly as, and less effective than, the control (QALY diff, 95% CI: - 0.029 (95% CI -0.062 to 0.003)). In the base-case analyses, GP screening for anxiety and depression was unlikely to be a cost-effective option (probability < 5% at £20,000/QALY). Similar results were observed in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Prompting GP's to routinely screen and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with OA is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to explore clinically-effective and cost-effective models of managing anxiety and depression in patients presenting with clinical OA. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Citation

Kigozi, J., Jowett, S., Nicholl, B. I., Lewis, M., Bartlam, B., Green, D., …Mallen, C. D. (2018). Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial. Arthritis Care and Research, 70(12), 1787-1794. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23568

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Mar 27, 2018
Online Publication Date Apr 2, 2018
Publication Date Dec 1, 2018
Publicly Available Date May 26, 2023
Journal Arthritis Care and Research
Print ISSN 2151-464X
Publisher Wiley
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 70
Issue 12
Pages 1787-1794
DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23568
Keywords case-finding, anxiety, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, depression, economic evaluation, osteoarthritis, screening
Publisher URL http://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23568

Files






You might also like



Downloadable Citations