We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Individuals with anxiety disorders often do not receive an accurate diagnosis or adequate treatment in primary care.
Aims
To analyse the cost-effectiveness of an optimised care model for people with anxiety disorders in primary care.
Method
In a cluster randomised controlled trial, 46 primary care practices with 389 individuals positively screened with anxiety were randomised to intervention (23 practices, 201 participants) or usual care (23 practices, 188 participants). Physicians in the intervention group received training on diagnosis and treatment of anxiety disorders combined with the offer of a psychiatric consultation–liaison service for 6 months. Anxiety, depression, quality of life, service utilisation and costs were assessed at baseline, 6-month and 9-month follow-up.
Results
Results
No significant differences were observed between intervention and control group on the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory and EQ–5D during follow-up. Total costs were higher in the intervention group (€4911 v. €3453, P = 0.09). The probability of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <€50 000 per quality-adjusted life year was below 10%.
Conclusions
The optimised care model did not prove to be cost-effective.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.