Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T04:30:30.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

05-04 Are the short-term cost savings and benefits of an early psychosis program maintained at 8-year follow-up?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

MG Harris
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
C Mihalopoulos
Affiliation:
School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
LP Henry
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
SM Harrigan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
SF Farrelly
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
OS Schwartz
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
AL Prosser
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
HJ Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Psychology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
PD McGorry
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstracts from ‘Brainwaves’— The Australasian Society for Psychiatric Research Annual Meeting 2006, 6–8 December, Sydney, Australia
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Blackwell Munksgaard

Background:

Despite considerable interest and investment in early psychosis services over the past one to two decades, scant attention has been paid to the economic evaluation of such services. A 1-year evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the Early Psychosis Prevention & Intervention Centre (EPPIC) model in Melbourne, Australia, concluded that EPPIC was a dominant intervention compared with historical care in that it was cheaper and more effective; however, no published studies have evaluated the longer term effects of a model of early intervention in terms of both outcomes and costs. This study aims to examine whether the cost savings and benefits associated with EPPIC persist beyond the 1-year timeframe.

Methods:

The study used a historical control design. A sample of 51 participants who presented to EPPIC in 1993 was individually matched (on age, sex, diagnosis, premorbid adjustment and marital status) with 51 participants admitted to the precursor service (the ‘pre-EPPIC’ service) between 1989 and 1992. Participants were followed up at 1 year, then again approximately 8 years after inception. A representative subsample of 65 participants was interviewed at 8-year follow-up. Data describing psychiatric service use, medication type, duration and dosage were collected by means of interviews with patients and informants, electronic databases and medical records. Standard economic methods will be used to evaluate the two interventions.

Results:

The results will compare the costs, benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness of the two interventions.

Conclusion:

This study will help answer whether the EPPIC model of care maintains ‘value for money’ over a longer period.