↓ Skip to main content

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Collaborative Care Intervention for Major Depressive Disorder in an Occupational Healthcare Setting

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-Utility Analysis of a Collaborative Care Intervention for Major Depressive Disorder in an Occupational Healthcare Setting
Published in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10926-013-9483-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maartje Goorden, Moniek C. Vlasveld, Johannes R. Anema, Willem van Mechelen, Aartjan T. F. Beekman, Rob Hoedeman, Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen

Abstract

Purpose Major depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life. Results The average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were <euro>3,874 (95 % CI <euro>2,778-<euro>5,718) compared to <euro>4,583 (95 % CI <euro>3,108-<euro>6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY's) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 %) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result. Conclusions The cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 21%
Psychology 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 35 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,300,563
of 23,383,275 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#103
of 612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,923
of 208,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,383,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 208,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.