↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 14 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,069,957
of 14,557,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psychosomatic Research
#674
of 1,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,864
of 282,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psychosomatic Research
#15
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,557,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,893 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 282,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.