Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary statistics of the base case analyses and sensitivity analyses from three perspectives

From: Cost-effectiveness of preventive case management for parents with a mental illness: a randomized controlled trial from three economic perspectives

Perspectivea

Condition

Costs, €b

Effectc

ICERd

Northeast

Northwest (inferior)

Southwest

Southeast (dominant)

Base case scenario

(imputed data, including cost outliers e )

Healthcare

Control (n = 50)

11,219

-1.89

     
 

PBCM (n = 49)

13,012

1.93

461

78 %

2 %

1 %

20 %

Social care

Control (n = 50)

16,979

-1.89

     
 

PBCM (n = 49)

17,717

1.93

215

60 %

1 %

1 %

37 %

Societal

Control (n = 50)

19,209

-1.89

     
 

PBCM (n = 49)

19,805

1.93

175

59 %

1 %

1 %

39 %

Alternative scenario A

(imputed data, excluding cost outliers)

Healthcare

Control (n = 47)

8,969

-1.28

     
 

PBCM (n = 47)

11,564

1.70

776

90 %

6 %

0 %

4 %

Social care

Control (n = 47)

14,422

-1.40

     
 

PBCM (n = 47)

16,138

1.70

517

81 %

4 %

1 %

15 %

Societal

Control (n = 47)

16,634

-1.82

     
 

PBCM (n = 47)

18,194

1.70

410

76 %

3 %

1 %

21 %

Alternative scenario B

(complete cases, including cost outliers)

Healthcare

Control (n = 41)

11,475

-2.06

     
 

PBCM (n = 41)

13,480

2.34

446

79 %

1 %

0 %

20 %

Social care

Control (n = 41)

17,765

-2.06

     
 

PBCM (n = 41)

18,375

2.34

133

58 %

1 %

1 %

40 %

Societal

Control (n = 41)

20,242

-2.06

     
 

PBCM (n = 41)

19,621

2.34

dominantf

41 %

0 %

1 %

58 %

Alternative scenario C

(imputed data, including cost outliers, PBCM-families who received the intervention)

Healthcare

Control (n = 48)

10,933

-1.65

     
 

PBCM (n = 38)

14,579

2.24

897

93 %

2 %

0 %

5 %

Social care

Control (n = 48)

16,140

-1.65

     
 

PBCM (n = 38)

19,522

2.24

843

90 %

2 %

0 %

8 %

Societal

Control (n = 48)

18,458

-1.65

     
 

PBCM (n = 38)

20,736

2.24

558

79 %

2 %

0 %

20 %

Alternative scenario D

(imputed data, including cost outliers, mean difference adjustment)

Healthcare

Control (n = 50)

8,981

-1.89

     
 

PBCM (n = 49)

13,012

1.93

1,031

95 %

2 %

0 %

3 %

Social care

Control (n = 50)

12,613

-1.89

     
 

PBCM (n = 49)

17,717

1.93

1,313

96 %

2 %

0 %

2 %

Societal

Control (n = 50)

15,647

-1.89

     
 

PBCM (n = 49)

19,804

1.93

1,059

92 %

2 %

0 %

6 %

  1. aIn the analyses either 1) intervention and healthcare costs (healthcare perspective), 2) intervention, healthcare and child care costs (social care perspective) or 3) all measured costs (societal perspective) were included
  2. bCosts per family at 2012 prices
  3. cAverage effectiveness (T-score) compared with the baseline assessment
  4. dThe presented median ICER is the 50th percentile of 5000 bootstrap replications of the ICER
  5. eDifferences in effects between the three perspectives are caused by the exclusion of cost outliers, which differed among the three perspectives
  6. f Lower incremental costs and a positive incremental effect of PBCM in comparison with the control condition leads to a negative ICER, which means that PBCM is superior to the control condition on cost-effectiveness
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us