Cited by 16Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMental Health Treatment and AccessProblem Solving Skills Development

Cost-effectiveness of problem-solving treatment in comparison with usual care for primary care patients with mental health problems: a randomized trial

Open access
Bosmans, Judith E, Schreuders, Bettine, van Marwijk, Harm WJ, Smit, Jan H, van Oppen, Patricia, van Tulder, Maurits W·2012·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems are common and are associated with increased disability and health care costs. Problem-Solving Treatment (PST) delivered to these patients by nurses in primary care might be efficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PST by mental health nurses compared with usual care (UC) by the general practitioner for primary care patients with mental health problems. METHODS: An economic evaluation from a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial. Patients with a positive General Health Questionnaire score (score ≥ 4) and who visited their general practitioner at least three times during the past 6 months were eligible. Outcome measures were improvement on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and QALYs based on the EQ-5D. Resource use was measured using a validated questionnaire. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Bootstrapping was used to analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of PST compared with UC. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes at 9 months. Mean total costs were €4795 in the PST group and €6857 in the UC group. Costs were not statistically significantly different between the two groups (95% CI -4698;359). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that PST was cost-effective in comparison with UC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: PST delivered by nurses seems cost-effective in comparison with UC. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since the difference in total costs was mainly caused by 3 outliers with extremely high indirect costs in the UC group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register ISRCTN51021015.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2296-13-98

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The two studies found showed fewer GP contacts after short-term psychological interventions and higher satisfaction among GPs.

    “The two studies we found [18,19] showed fewer GP contacts after short-term psychological interventions and higher satisfaction among GPs.”

    From Healthcare utilization in general practice before and after psychological treatment: A follow-up data linkage study in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [18]

    Table 1 (Methods > Cost measures; page unavailable) reports fewer GP contacts over nine months in the problem-solving treatment group than in usual care (4.1 versus 4.8 on average), though the difference was not statistically significant. The paper reports one trial, and the passages on outcomes and health care utilization do not report GP satisfaction; this source therefore does not support the claim that both studies found higher satisfaction among GPs. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bosmans, J. E., Schreuders, B., van Marwijk, H. W., Smit, J. H., van Oppen, P., & van Tulder, M. W.
Affiliations
Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
Corresponding author
Bosmans, Judith E
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2012-10-10
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
98-98
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154070425
Cited by
16
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
8.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Problem Solving Skills Development
Keywords
problem-solving therapy, cost-effectiveness, mental illness, psychiatric nurses, primary care, usual care, general practitioners, anxiety, depression, quality-adjusted life years, resource utilization (health care), economic evaluation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Problem Solving, Psychotherapy, Brief, Health Care Costs, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Practice Patterns, Nurses'

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review