↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Psychosomatic Research, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer
Published in
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, December 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.10.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Duarte, J. Walker, S. Walker, G. Richardson, C. Holm Hansen, P. Martin, G. Murray, M. Sculpher, M. Sharpe

Abstract

Comorbid major depression is associated with reduced quality of life and greater use of healthcare resources. A recent randomised trial (SMaRT, Symptom Management Research Trials, Oncology-2) found that a collaborative care treatment programme (Depression Care for People with Cancer, DCPC) was highly effective in treating depression in patients with cancer. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care from a health service perspective. Costs were estimated using UK national unit cost estimates and health outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care was calculated and scenario analyses performed to test alternative assumptions on costs and missing data. Uncertainty was characterised using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was determined using the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold range of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained. DCPC cost on average £631 more than usual care per patient, and resulted in a mean gain of 0.066 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £9549 per QALY. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was 0.9 or greater at cost-effectiveness thresholds above £20,000 per QALY for the base case and scenario analyses. Compared with usual care, DCPC is likely to be cost-effective at the current thresholds used by NICE. This study adds to the weight of evidence that collaborative care treatment models are cost-effective for depression, and provides new evidence regarding their use in specialist medical settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 9 17%
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 23%
Unspecified 12 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Other 11 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#9,428,076
of 12,299,194 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psychosomatic Research
#1,354
of 1,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,620
of 262,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psychosomatic Research
#35
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,299,194 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.