IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268948.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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

Abstract

Background: Target-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 findings: A 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. Conclusions: Target-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).

Suggested Citation

  • 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 Davi, 2022. "Economic evaluation of the Target-D platform to match depression management to severity prognosis in primary care: A within-trial cost-utility analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268948
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268948
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268948
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268948&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268948?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony H. Harris & Suzanne R. Hill & Geoffrey Chin & Jing Jing Li & Emily Walkom, 2008. "The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 713-722, September.
    2. Glick, Henry A. & Doshi, Jalpa A. & Sonnad, Seema S. & Polsky, Daniel, 2014. "Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199685028, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    2. Maria Rubio-Valera & María Teresa Peñarrubia-María & Maria Iglesias-González & Martin Knapp & Paul McCrone & Marta Roig & Ramón Sabes-Figuera & Juan V. Luciano & Juan M. Mendive & Ana Gabriela Murruga, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of antidepressants versus active monitoring for mild-to-moderate major depressive disorder: a multisite non-randomized-controlled trial in primary care (INFAP study)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 703-713, July.
    3. José-Manuel Pastora-Bernal & María-José Estebanez-Pérez & Guadalupe Molina-Torres & Francisco-José García-López & Raquel Sobrino-Sánchez & Rocío Martín-Valero, 2021. "Telerehabilitation Intervention in Patients with COVID-19 after Hospital Discharge to Improve Functional Capacity and Quality of Life. Study Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-12, March.
    4. Constanza Vargas & Rebecca Addo & Milena Lewandowska & Philip Haywood & Richard Abreu Lourenco & Stephen Goodall, 2024. "Use of Health Technology Assessment for the Continued Funding of Health Technologies: The Case of Immunoglobulins for the Management of Multifocal Motor Neuropathy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 73-84, January.
    5. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    6. Nicolas Boespflug & Jérôme Wittwer & Antoine Bénard, 2024. "Factors associated with the author-reported cost-effectiveness threshold in high-income countries: systematic review and multivariable modelling," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(4), pages 631-639, June.
    7. NamKwen Kim & Kyung-Min Shin & Eun-Sung Seo & Minjung Park & Hye-Yoon Lee, 2020. "Electroacupuncture with Usual Care for Patients with Non-Acute Pain after Back Surgery: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, June.
    8. Sung Wook Kim & Caterina Alacevich & Catia Nicodemo & Raphael Wittenberg & Simon Lusignan & Stavros Petrou, 2025. "The Association between COVID-19 Status and Economic Costs in the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from a UK Symptom Surveillance Digital Survey," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 231-245, March.
    9. Jing Jing Li & Anthony Harris, 2025. "Dynamic Bargaining Over Public Insurance Coverage For Drugs In Australia," Papers 2025-09, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
    10. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    11. Claudia Schulz & Gisela Büchele & Raphael S. Peter & Dietrich Rothenbacher & Christian Brettschneider & Ulrich C. Liener & Clemens Becker & Kilian Rapp & Hans-Helmut König, 2021. "Health-economic evaluation of collaborative orthogeriatric care for patients with a hip fracture in Germany: a retrospective cohort study using health and long-term care insurance claims data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(6), pages 873-885, August.
    12. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    13. Jamie O’Hara & Shaun Walsh & Charlotte Camp & Giuseppe Mazza & Liz Carroll & Christina Hoxer & Lars Wilkinson, 2018. "The relationship between target joints and direct resource use in severe haemophilia," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, December.
    14. Maarten Moens & Cleo Lina Crunelle & Koen Putman & Elke Wuyts & Frenn Bultinck & Hubert Van Puyenbroeck & PIANISSIMO consortium & Lisa Goudman, 2024. "Pain medication tapering for patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type II, treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation: A RCT–study protocol of the PIANISSIMO study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-23, August.
    15. Osvaldo Ulises Garay & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Asmaa Janah & Pierre-Marie Girard & Geneviève Chêne & Laetitia Moinot & Luis Sagaon-Teyssier & Jean-Luc Meynard & Bruno Spire &, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 505-515, December.
    16. S. Boyer & M. L. Nishimwe & L. Sagaon-Teyssier & L. March & S. Koulla-Shiro & M.-Q. Bousmah & R. Toby & M. P. Mpoudi-Etame & N. F. Ngom Gueye & A. Sawadogo & C. Kouanfack & L. Ciaffi & B. Spire & E. D, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 45-60, March.
    17. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    18. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    19. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    20. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268948. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.