Cost-effectiveness analysis of a supported employment intervention for people with mood and anxiety disorders in Denmark – the IPS-MA intervention. (1st July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hellström, Lone; Kruse, Marie; Christensen, Thomas Nordahl; Trap Wolf, Rasmus; Eplov, Lene Falgaard
• Is Part Of: Nordic journal of psychiatry. Volume 75:Number 5(2021)
• Page Start: 389
• Page End: 396
• Publication Date: 2021-07-01
• Subjects: Individual placement and support -- IPS-MA -- cost-effectiveness; Psychopharmacology -- Periodicals; Psychotherapy -- Periodicals; Psychiatry -- Periodicals; Psychiatry -- Scandinavia -- Periodicals; 616.89
• DOI: 10.1080/08039488.2021.1877348
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0803-9488

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: We aimed to investigate the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a modified Individual Placement and Support intervention for people with mood and anxiety disorders (IPS-MA). Methods: Costs were assessed from a societal perspective. Health care costs were derived from registers and combined with data on use of IPS-MA services, municipal social care, and labour market services. EQ-5D was used to compute QALY. Missing data were imputed in a sensitivity analysis. We also computed the cost per gain in hours worked. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were computed and bootstrapped to obtain confidence intervals for QALY and gain in hours worked. Results: We found no difference in overall costs between groups. A significant saving was found in use of labour market services in the IPS-MA group. But the IPS-MA group had significantly lower wage earnings compared to the control group. The intervention group had a higher, though statistically in-significant, increase in QALYs than the control group. The ICER did not show statistically significant results, but there was a tendency, that IPS-MA could have a positive effect on health-related quality of life without any additional costs. However, participants in the IPS-MA group had a significantly lower gain in hours worked compared to the control group. Conclusions: Despite a significant saving in use of labour market services, IPS-MA was not cost-effective. Participants in the IPS-MA group worked significantly fewer hours and earned significantly less than participants in the control group at 1-year follow-up.