This peer-reviewed article has been accepted for publication but not yet copyedited or typeset, and so may be subject to change during the production process. The article is considered published and may be cited using its DOI.
Background
Only two-thirds of patients admitted to psychiatric wards return to their previous jobs. Return-to-work interventions in Germany are investigated for their effectiveness, but information regarding cost-effectiveness is lacking. This study investigates the cost-utility of a return-to-work intervention for patients with mental disorders compared to treatment as usual (TAU).
Methods
We used data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial including 166 patients from 28 inpatient psychiatric wards providing data at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Health and social care service use was measured with the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Cost-utility analysis was performed by calculating additional costs per one additional QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) gained by receiving the support of return-to-work experts, in comparison to TAU.
Results
No significant cost or QALY difference between the intervention and control groups has been detected. The return-to-work intervention cannot be identified as cost-effective in comparison to TAU.
Conclusions
The employment of return-to-work experts could not reach the threshold of providing good value for money. TAU, therefore, seems to be sufficient support for the target group.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.