PLoS ONE (Jan 2022)

Economic evaluation of the Target-D platform to match depression management to severity prognosis in primary care: A within-trial cost-utility analysis.

  • Yong Yi Lee,
  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos,
  • Mary Lou Chatterton,
  • Susan L Fletcher,
  • Patty Chondros,
  • Konstancja Densley,
  • Elizabeth Murray,
  • Christopher Dowrick,
  • Amy Coe,
  • Kelsey L Hegarty,
  • Sandra K Davidson,
  • Caroline Wachtler,
  • Victoria J Palmer,
  • Jane M Gunn

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268948
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 5
p. e0268948

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundTarget-D, a new person-centred e-health platform matching depression care to symptom severity prognosis (minimal/mild, moderate or severe) has demonstrated greater improvement in depressive symptoms than usual care plus attention control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Target-D compared to usual care from a health sector and partial societal perspective across 3-month and 12-month follow-up.Methods and findingsA cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside the Target-D randomised controlled trial; which involved 1,868 participants attending 14 general practices in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Data on costs were collected using a resource use questionnaire administered concurrently with all other outcome measures at baseline, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Intervention costs were assessed using financial records compiled during the trial. All costs were expressed in Australian dollars (A$) for the 2018-19 financial year. QALY outcomes were derived using the Assessment of Quality of Life-8D (AQoL-8D) questionnaire. On a per person basis, the Target-D intervention cost between $14 (minimal/mild prognostic group) and $676 (severe group). Health sector and societal costs were not significantly different between trial arms at both 3 and 12 months. Relative to a A$50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of Target-D being cost-effective under a health sector perspective was 81% at 3 months and 96% at 12 months. From a societal perspective, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 30% at 3 months and 80% at 12 months.ConclusionsTarget-D is likely to represent good value for money for health care decision makers. Further evaluation of QALY outcomes should accompany any routine roll-out to assess comparability of results to those observed in the trial. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000537459).