Cost-effectiveness Of Counseling Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness of counselling, graded-exercise and usual care for chronic fatigue: evidence from a randomised trial in primary care.

BackgroundFatigue is common and has been shown to result in high economic costs to society. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of two active therapies, graded-exercise (GET) and counselling (COUN) with usual care plus a self-help booklet (BUC) for people presenting with chronic fatigue.MethodsA randomised controlled trial was conducted with participants consulting for fatigue of over three months’ duration recruited from 31 general practices in South East England and allocated to one of three arms. Outcomes and use of services were assessed at 6-month follow-up. The main outcome measure used in the economic evaluation was clinically significant improvements in fatigue, measured using the Chalder fatigue scale. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.ResultsFull economic and outcome data at six months were available for 163 participants; GET = 51, COUN = 58 and BUC = 54. Those receiving the active therapies (GET and COUN) had more contacts with care professionals and therefore higher costs, these differences being statistically significant. COUN was more expensive and less effective than the other two therapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GET compared to BUC was equal to £987 per unit of clinically significant improvement. However, there was much uncertainty around this result.ConclusionThis study does not provide a clear recommendation about which therapeutic option to adopt, based on efficiency, for patients with chronic fatigue. It suggests that COUN is not cost-effective, but it is unclear whether GET represents value for money compared to BUC.Clinical Trial Registration number at ISRCTN register: 72136156

Cost-effectiveness of counseling and pedometer use to increase physical activity in the Netherlands: a modeling study

BackgroundCounseling in combination with pedometer use has proven to be effective in increasing physical activity and improving health outcomes. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of this intervention targeted at one million insufficiently active adults who visit their general practitioner in the Netherlands.MethodsWe used the RIVM chronic disease model to estimate the long-term effects of increased physical activity on the future health care costs and quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, from a health care perspective.ResultsThe intervention resulted in almost 6000 people shifting to more favorable physical-activity levels, and in 5100 life years and 6100 QALYs gained, at an additional total cost of EUR 67.6 million. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was EUR 13,200 per life year gained and EUR 11,100 per QALY gained. The intervention has a probability of 0.66 to be cost-effective if a QALY gained is valued at the Dutch informal threshold for cost-effectiveness of preventive intervention of EUR 20,000. A sensitivity analysis showed substantial uncertainty of ICER values.ConclusionCounseling in combination with pedometer use aiming to increase physical activity may be a cost-effective intervention. However, the intervention only yields relatively small health benefits in the Netherlands.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care.

Counsellors are prevalent in primary care settings. However, there are concerns about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the treatments they provide, compared with alternatives such as usual care from the general practitioner, medication or other psychological therapies. To assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling in primary care by reviewing cost and outcome data in randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and controlled patient preference trials of counselling interventions in primary care, for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. The original search strategy included electronic searching of databases (including the CCDAN Register of RCTs and CCTs) along with handsearching of a specialist journal. Published and unpublished sources (clinical trials, books, dissertations, agency reports etc.) were searched, and their reference lists scanned to uncover further controlled trials. Contact was made with subject experts and CCDAN members in order to uncover further trials. For the updated review, searches were restricted to those databases judged to be high yield in the first version of the review: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCLIT and CINAHL, the Cochrane Controlled Trials register and the CCDAN trials register. All controlled trials comparing counselling in primary care with other treatments for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. Trials completed before the end of June 2001 were included in the review. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction sheet. The relevant data were entered into the Review Manager software. Trials were quality rated, using CCDAN criteria, to assess the extent to which their design and conduct were likely to have prevented systematic error. Continuous measures of outcome were combined using standardised mean differences. An overall effect size was calculated for each outcome with 95% confidence intervals. Continuous data from different measuring instruments were transformed into a standard effect size by dividing mean values by standard deviations. In view of the diversity of counselling services in primary care (the range of treatments, patients and practitioners) tests of heterogeneity were done to assess the feasibility of aggregating measures of outcome from trials. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the robustness of the results. Seven trials were included in the review. The main analyses showed significantly greater clinical effectiveness in the counselling group compared with 'usual care' in the short-term (standardised mean difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13, n=772, 6 trials) but not the long-term (standardised mean difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.10, n=475, 4 trials). Levels of satisfaction with counselling were high. Four studies reported similar total costs associated with counselling and usual care over the long-term. However, the economic analyses were likely to be underpowered. Counselling is associated with modest improvement in short-term outcome compared to 'usual care', but provides no additional advantages in the long-term. Patients are satisfied with counselling, and it may not be associated with increased costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Counseling and Testing to Prevent Sexual Transmission of HIV in the United States

In this paper we review the cost-effectiveness of HIV counseling and testing in various settings and populations in preventing the sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, and we discuss how multiple and changing goals have influenced economic evaluations of these programs. The literature indicates that these interventions are generally cost-effective if targeted to groups of infected or high-risk individuals, although there is continuing debate over the efficacy of HIV counseling and testing in changing sexual behavior. For these reasons, HIV counseling and testing programs should be part of an overall prevention strategy which also includes more intensive sexual risk-reduction interventions such as individual, small-group, and community-level approaches.

Counselling in primary care: A systematic review of the research evidence

Counselling in primary care in the UK is expanding rapidly, and its evidence base needs to be established. We present the rationale for conducting controlled trials of counselling in primary care, and suggest that a systematic review of controlled trials of counselling in primary care is timely. We describe the process of conducting the review in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The review aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of counselling in primary care, by systematically reviewing cost and outcome data from randomised controlled trials and controlled patient preference trials of counselling interventions, for patients with psychological and psychosocial problems considered suitable for counselling. The search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection and data analysis are described. The results of the review are presented. The review included only controlled trials of counselling in which counsellors accredited by the British Association for Counselling (or equivalent) provided non-directive counselling in primary care. Four trials met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated that patients who receive counselling show a modest but significant improvement in symptom levels compared with those who receive GP care. Levels of satisfaction with counselling are high. There is very tentative evidence to suggest that counselled patients are more likely to be considered recovered than usual GP care patients. There is limited information about the cost-effectiveness of counselling. We conclude by reflecting upon the results of the review and their implications for counselling research.

Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Counselling in Primary Care. By K. Tolley and N. Rowland. (Pp. 210.) Routledge: London. 1995.

Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Counselling in Primary Care. By K. Tolley and N. Rowland. (Pp. 210.) Routledge: London. 1995.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of counselling in health care

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of counselling in health care

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Counselling in Health Care

Keith Tolley, Nancy Rowland Routledge, pounds sterling14.99, pp 210 ISBN 0 415 07661 7 Recent years have seen increasing demands for counselling, particularly in general practice settings. Having access to a counsellor usually proves popular with patients, and is often supported by their doctors. Some general practice fundholders have even chosen to purchase counselling at the expense of other resources such as community psychiatric nursing. Can this be justified as an effective use of resources? Similarly, some cardiology services incorporate counselling into their rehabilitation programmes, while others do not. What is the evidence in this setting that counselling can be cost effective? Although Evaluating the …