eemhassignmentexamplemerit1 EconomicEvaluationAssignment3 xEconomicEvaluationAssignment_12 xeemhassignmentexampledistinction1 EEMH19exampleassignmentsLAMICMerit21
I have attached instructions for this paper. I have no idea what I want to base this paper on which is something I would like the writer to do as well. Perhaps have a discussion with me, i am welcome to ideas. I have also attached what kind of paper the instructor expects.
1
Merit
2
Mindfulness-based therapy for people with schizophrenia: randomised control trial and
economic evaluation protocol.
Introduction
Schizophrenia is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterised by the presence of
psychopathological domains, such as delusions, hallucinations, formal thought disorder,
motor abnormalities and negative symptoms (1).
Although this disorder is not particularly frequent, with an estimated prevalence around 1%
(2), it is one of the most disabling conditions according to the Global Burden of Disease
studies (3, 4).
People with schizophrenia not only suffer from symptoms, but also from the consequences of
stigma, neglect and abuse (5, 6). Indeed, people with schizophrenia are less likely to be
employed (7) or have their own house (8), and they die 15–20 years earlier than the general
population (9).
In addition, schizophrenia represents a costly condition for patients, caregivers and the
society. For instance, cost-of-illness systematic reviews have calculated prevalence-based
annual costs for schizophrenia ranging from US$94 million to US$102 billion (2013 US
dollars) (10-12).
Pharmacological treatment is one of the cornerstone of schizophrenia therapeutics (13),
however, noncompliance is a challenging issue (14) and even with adequate adherence, up to
30% of patients experience partial response (15). Psychosocial interventions have been
developed in order to increment treatment compliance, but also to help people to cope with
their symptoms, reduce relapses and increment social functioning (16).
The specific case of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has received special attention in the
literature, being recommended even in patients who are resistant to pharmacological
treatment (17). In addition, some economic evaluations have demonstrated that CBT is a
cost-effective intervention from a health perspective (18-20).
3
Mindfulness-based therapy (MBT), by contrast, has only recently started to be used to treat
people with psychosis (21). This is an operationalised intervention that includes the
development of cognitive and affect dimensions to embrace internal experiences, rather than
avoid them (22). This intervention includes guided meditation and can be added to cognitive
therapy (23).
Despite initial concerns about the use of meditation in schizophrenia, pilot studies have
demonstrated the feasibility of using MBT for psychosis (24) and clinical trials have shown
that it can alleviate the distress associated with hallucinations and paranoia (25). Two recent
meta-analyses have evaluated the clinical effectiveness of mindfulness-based therapy for
psychosis (26, 27) with favourable results in terms of symptomatology and rehospitalisation
rate.
With this evidence, some people have argued that MBT should be included in the clinical
guidelines, as well as CBT (23). However, until the moment of writing this protocol, no
economic evaluation has been done to probe the cost-effectiveness of such intervention.
Hence, a new randomised trial with an economic evaluation is needed to assess whether MBT
for psychosis represent a valuable therapeutic choice.
Policy question and perspective
This research will answer the policy question about whether it is worthwhile to include MBT
in the package of care of people with schizophrenia.
To make this decision the health service perspective is crucial. Since this protocol is intended
to be applied to the UK setting, the NHS and Personal Social Services perspectives will be
considered according to the NICE recommendations (28).
However, schizophrenia has been proven to impact on many areas of people’s lives (7) and
the evidence has shown that most of costs are indirect costs (11). Hence, a broader
perspective seems more appropriate.
4
In addition, this research could also be relevant to other policy groups interested in the care of
people with schizophrenia, such as non-governmental organisations (NGO), family and
service-user organisations and research agencies.
Therefore, a societal perspective will be taken, including costs related to health and social
care, but also to productivity losses and costs of informal care.
Productivity losses will be included given that people with schizophrenia have a diminished
ability to work. This is partly due to the symptomatology (cognitive and negative symptoms
(1), but also due to the fact that the first episode of psychosis usually occurs in early
adulthood with a chronic course (29).
Although informal care is not mandatory by NICE, there is substantial evidence on the
impact of schizophrenia in family and caregivers (30) and many of such burden could
eventually implies costs for the NHS, because higher proportion of depression and physical
complaints (31).
Aim
The aim of this study is to assess the clinical and economic value of adding a mindfulness-
based intervention (MBT) to CBT for people with schizophrenia from a societal perspective.
Objectives
1) To compare effectiveness of CBT plus a MBT intervention versus CBT alone on
short- and long-term clinical outcomes in people with schizophrenia from secondary
care settings.
2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of adding MBT to CBT for people
with schizophrenia from secondary care settings.
Hypothesis
The addition of MBT to CBT is associated with less symptomatology amongst people with
schizophrenia compared with CBT alone.
5
CBT with a MBT intervention results in a more cost-effective intervention compared with
CBT alone, for the UK context.
Research methods
Research design
A two-arm, parallel, randomised, controlled trial of MBT plus CBT in comparison with CBT
alone.
Setting
Participants will be recruited from secondary care facilities, either inpatient or community
mental health teams. Specialised services, such as early intervention in psychosis services or
assertive teams will be also included.
Eligibility criteria
Patients aged 18 to 64 years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia-spectrum psychosis according
to the DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria. This includes schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder,
delusional disorder and schizoaffective disorder.
Exclusion criteria:
1. Unwillingness to provide informed consent.
2. Intellectual disability defined as an IQ<80.
3. Active comorbidity with substance misuse without treatment.
4. Decompensated physical comorbidity that difficult the interventions.
5. Refusal to psychological therapies.
Intervention
The experimental group will receive MBT according to the procedures developed by Segal et
al (32) and adapted to people with psychosis by Chadwick (24). The rationale for this is its
operationalisation and evidence in previous studies (25, 33). Patients will receive mindfulness
sessions twice a week over a period of 12 weeks led by a trained therapist and will be
encouraged to maintain CD-guided meditation practices at home.
This group will maintain treatment according to NICE guidelines (34), including
pharmacotherapy, social support and CBT.
6
Comparator
Patients from the parallel arm will receive treatment according to NICE clinical guidelines
(34) as in the intervention group, but without the mindfulness-based module.
The CBT intervention will be defined as 16 one-to-one based sessions, following a treatment
manual to evaluate links between thoughts, feelings and behaviours (34).
Treatment fidelity
The therapists in the experimental group will complete a form after every session, which will
be assessed by a research team member for treatment fidelity. CBT sessions will be recorded
(in both arms) and will be stochastically evaluated.
Outcomes
The primary outcome will be the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia
(CGI-SCH) (35). The rationale for this is that psychological therapies for schizophrenia have
a focus on how people deal with distressing symptoms, instead of only reducing them (36).
The CGI-SCH scale is applicable by clinicians and it permits evaluate the severity and
general functioning. Psychometric evaluations have demonstrated high reliability and high
correlation with other scales such as GAF and PANSS (35).
The main secondary outcome will be the quality-adjusted life years (QALY). For this study,
the SF-6D instrument will be used. This is an instrument developed by Brazier from the SF-
36 (37). The SF-6D has demonstrated advantages over the EQ-5D specifically in people with
schizophrenia, such as to reflect better the severe nature of the condition, being more
sensitive to change, has a normal distribution and lack of ceiling effect (38).
Other measures
The PANSS (39) will be applied to evaluate more specifically the symptomatology of
schizophrenia and its correlation with CSI-SCH. The Social functioning scale (40) will
evaluate general aspects of recovery.
At baseline, sociodemographic characteristics of participants will be recorded joint with costs
and outcomes measurements. Next assessments with costs evaluation (see forehead) will be
at 3 months (just after the intervention), 6 months and 1 year.
7
Study procedures
Recruitment and preparation
Patients will be recruited from secondary care facilities from a defined catchment area of
London. Evaluators will be trained in measurement instruments. Inter-rater reliability will be
assessed with practice interviews.
Allocation
Treatment allocation will be generated by an independent computer-derived random sequence
for purposes of concealment. An administrator will inform to patients, key health-workers
and MBT therapists of the allocation by phone.
Blinding
The principal investigator and assessors will be blind to the randomisation status of patients.
This will be maintained by providing instructions to patients, their therapists, clinical teams
and caregivers of no revealing randomisation status. In addition, data will be treated with a
unique identification code to storage and management of the electronic database.
Sample size
The sample size calculations are based on the clinical effectiveness hypothesis.
To detect a mean difference in CGI-SCH of 4 points (which has described as clinically
significant (35)) with a standard deviation (SD) of 4, a two-sided significance level (α) of 5%
and power (1 – β) of 80% would require 17 patients in each arm. However, given the group
modality of the MBT intervention, a cluster effect is likely to be found (41). A new sample
calculation with same means, SD, power and level of significance, but using an intraclass-
correlation of 0.5 and an estimated cluster size of 8 would require 80 participants per
arm.
Both analyses were carried out with STATA 14.2, with commands power and clustersampsi
to sample sizes with and without clustering, respectively.
Estimating a conservative drop-out rate of 30%, is planned to be enrol 104 people in each
arm.
8
Economic evaluation
Methods
The design for the economic evaluation of the primary outcome will be a cost-effectiveness
analysis. Differences in costs and CGI-SCH scores in both arms will be used to calculate an
incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) using the following formula (42):
Fig 1. ICER formula for CEA
Where CMBT is the mean costs in the MBT group; CCBT is the mean costs in the control group;
CGIMBT is the mean CGI score in the treatment arm; and CGICBT is the mean CGI score in the
control.
Uncertainty of the ICERs will be simulated by resampling bootstrapping method with 2000
iterations and simulated means for costs and outcomes will be plotted in the cost-
effectiveness plane.
The same process will be applied to the QALYs from the SF-6D, resulting in a cost-utility
analysis of the effect of MBT. This will permit to inform directly to the decision maker with a
generic measure of health gain (42).
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be provided to estimate the probability that the
adding MBT is cost-effective compared with CBT alone (43). The rationale for this are: 1)
Adding a new intervention is likely to be in the northeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness
plane; 2) There will be uncertainty in the measurement of costs and outcomes; 3) Is unlikely
to find a statistically significant difference between mean costs, given the sample size
calculated (44).
9
Cost analysis
Identification
In relation to the perspective of the economic evaluation previously mentioned, relevant
resources will be listed for the health system, formal social care, informal social care and
productivity losses.
Direct medical costs will include psychiatric hospitalisation, emergency visits, day-hospital
care, community mental healthcare, medication and general physical care. Hospital- and
community-based staff costs will include those from psychiatrists, GP, nurses and therapists.
Costs of the MBT intervention will be calculated following the people allocated approach
(45). The rationale for this is that groups will be closed at 8 people and every session will run
unless no-one attend. The ratio of direct and indirect time will be extrapolated from a study of
MBT for depression (46).
Costs of formal social care will include supported accommodation and costs of social worker
per hour of contact with patients. Costs of informal care will be calculated based on the
monetary valuation of the time invested by caregivers in assisting the patients (47).
Measurement
According to recommendations of a taxonomy for resource use measurement (RUM) (48),
this study will calculate resource use in the following way: 1) Source of data: patients and
patient proxies (caregiver or relative); 2) The RUM will be completed by a member of the
research team; 3) It will be administrated in a face-to-face basis; and 4) recorded in an
electronic format following a pre-stabled questionnaire.
The healthcare utilisation will be measured through the Client Socio-demographic and
Service Receipt Inventory (49), which is a recall questionnaire that allow measurement of
health and social care utilisation, specially validated for mental health and with independently
assessment of correlation with computerised records (50). Informal care will be measured by
a face-to-face questionnaire (51) and the productivity losses will be calculated by the World
Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ), a self-report
instrument which estimate the workplace costs of health problems (52).
10
Valuation
The valuation of health and social care resources will base on published PSSRU unit costs of
Health and Social Care 2016 (53).
To value the informal care provided by caregivers, because the high burden of people caring
schizophrenic patients (54), the wellbeing method shall be used (55).
Finally, the friction cost approach (56) will be used to value the productivity losses, given the
evidence that overestimation by the human capital approach in schizophrenia (57).
Statistical analysis
Analysis will be carried-out with an intention-to-treat basis. This means that data will be
analysed according to initially allocated group, independently of withdrawals (58). Missing
data will treated through the multiple imputation method if they miss at random basis (59). If
such assumption is not satisfied, adjustment and modelling mechanisms will be explored
(60).
To examine successful randomisation, chi-squared and t-test statistics will be used. Baseline
characteristic with the results of statistical test will be presented in tables with 95%
confidence intervals and p-values less than 0.05 will consider significant.
Differences in the mean score of the outcomes and costs will be compared using the t-test
with adjustment by baseline characteristics and costs values.
As a result of the previously mentioned clustering effect, a multilevel analysis will be carried-
out to take into account the differences in therapists’ performance (41).
Several sensitivity analyses will be carried-out to test assumptions in measurements of costs
and outcomes, as well as for loss of follow-up and missing data.
Presentation of the results
Comparison between costs and outcomes will be presented in the form of ICERs (with
resampled estimations) in a cost-effectiveness plane. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves
with willingness to pay (WTP) ranging between £0 and £35,000 per QALY will permit to the
policy maker take a decision based on the probability of that MBT be cost-effective.
11
Ethics arrangements and dissemination
Research Ethics Committee approval will be obtained before the start of the project.
All eligible participant will require a written consent to be included in the trial, which will be
conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki (61).
The results of this research will be published in peer-review journals, anonymised data will
be accessible for sharing for non-commercial aims and it hopes improve the care of people
with schizophrenia.
References
1. American Psychiatric A. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5). Washington, United States: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
2. Messias EL, Chen CY, Eaton WW. Epidemiology of schizophrenia: review of
findings and myths. The Psychiatric clinics of North America. 2007;30(3):323-38.
3. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, Erskine HE, et al.
Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the
Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet (London, England). 2013;382(9904):1575-86.
4. Whiteford HA, Ferrari AJ, Degenhardt L, Feigin V, Vos T. The global burden of
mental, neurological and substance use disorders: an analysis from the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2010. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0116820.
5. Rose D, Willis R, Brohan E, Sartorius N, Villares C, Wahlbeck K, et al. Reported
stigma and discrimination by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Epidemiology and
psychiatric sciences. 2011;20(2):193-20
4.
6. Thornicroft G, Rose D, Kassam A, Sartorius N. Stigma: ignorance, prejudice or
discrimination? The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2007;190(3):192-3.
7. Morgan C, McKenzie K, Fearon P. Society and Psychosis. Cambridge,: Cambridge
University Press; 2008.
12
8. Agerbo E, Byrne M, Eaton WW, Mortensen PB. Marital and labor market status in
the long run in schizophrenia. Archives of general psychiatry. 2004;61(1):28-33.
9.
Beary M, Hodgson R, Wildgust HJ. A critical review of major mortality risk factors
for all-cause mortality in first-episode schizophrenia: clinical and research implications.
Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England). 2012;26(5 Suppl):52-61.
10. Knapp M, Mangalore R, Simon J. The global costs of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull.
2004;30(2):279-93.
11. Chong HY, Teoh SL, Wu DB, Kotirum S, Chiou CF, Chaiyakunapruk N. Global
economic burden of schizophrenia: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatric disease and
treatment. 2016;12:357-73.
12. Jin H, Mosweu I. The Societal Cost of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(1):25-42.
13. Buchanan RW, Kreyenbuhl J, Kelly DL, Noel JM, Boggs DL, Fischer BA, et al. The
2009 Schizophrenia PORT Psychopharmacological Treatment Recommendations and
Summary Statements. Schizophr Bull. 2010;36(1):71-93.
14. Higashi K, Medic G, Littlewood KJ, Diez T, Granström O, De Hert M. Medication
adherence in schizophrenia: factors influencing adherence and consequences of
nonadherence, a systematic literature review. Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology.
2013;3(4):200-18.
15. Howes OD, McCutcheon R, Agid O, de Bartolomeis A, van Beveren NJ, Birnbaum
ML, et al. Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: Treatment Response and Resistance in
Psychosis (TRRIP) Working Group Consensus Guidelines on Diagnosis and Terminology.
Am J Psychiatry. 2016:appiajp201616050503.
16. Turner DT, van der Gaag M, Karyotaki E, Cuijpers P. Psychological interventions for
psychosis: a meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. Am J Psychiatry.
2014;171(5):523-38.
13
17. Kuipers E, Fowler D, Garety P, Chisholm D, Freeman D, Dunn G, et al. London-east
Anglia randomised controlled trial of cognitive-behavioural therapy for psychosis. III:
Follow-up and economic evaluation at 18 months. Br J Psychiatry. 1998;173:61-8.
18. van der Gaag M, Stant AD, Wolters KJK, Buskens E, Wiersma D. Cognitive–
behavioural therapy for persistent and recurrent psychosis in people with schizophrenia-
spectrum disorder: cost-effectiveness analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
2011;198(1):59-65.
19. Haddock G, Barrowclough C, Tarrier N, Moring J, O’Brien R, Schofield N, et al.
Cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational intervention for schizophrenia and substance
misuse. 18-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:418-
26.
20. Barton GR, Hodgekins J, Mugford M, Jones PB, Croudace T, Fowler D. Cognitive
behaviour therapy for improving social recovery in psychosis: cost-effectiveness analysis.
Schizophr Res. 2009;112(1-3):158-63.
21. Khoury B, Lecomte T, Gaudiano BA, Paquin K. Mindfulness interventions for
psychosis: a meta-analysis. Schizophr Res. 2013;150(1):176-84.
22. Khoury B, Lecomte T, Fortin G, Masse M, Therien P, Bouchard V, et al.
Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review.
2013;33(6):763-71.
23. Chadwick P. Mindfulness for psychosis. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
2014;204(5):333-4.
24. Chadwick P, Taylor KN, Abba N. Mindfulness Groups for People with Psychosis.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2005;33(3):351-9.
25. Langer AI, Cangas AJ, Salcedo E, Fuentes B. Applying mindfulness therapy in a
group of psychotic individuals: a controlled study. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2012;40(1):105-
9.
14
26. Khoury B, Lecomte T, Gaudiano BA, Paquin K. Mindfulness interventions for
psychosis: A meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Research. 2013;150(1):176-84.
27. Cramer H, Lauche R, Haller H, Langhorst J, Dobos G. Mindfulness- and Acceptance-
based Interventions for Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Global Advances
in Health and Medicine. 2016;5(1):30-43.
28. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology
appraisal 2013. 2013.
29. Carr VJ, Lewin TJ, Neil AL, Halpin SA, Holmes S. Premorbid, psychosocial and
clinical predictors of the costs of schizophrenia and other psychoses. Br J Psychiatry.
2004;184:517-25.
30. Awad AG, Voruganti LN. The burden of schizophrenia on caregivers: a review.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(2):149-62.
31. Gupta S, Isherwood G, Jones K, Van Impe K. Assessing health status in informal
schizophrenia caregivers compared with health status in non-caregivers and caregivers of
other conditions. BMC psychiatry. 2015;15:162.
32. Segal Z, Williams JMG. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression. New
York, UNITED STATES: Guilford Publications; 2001.
33. Chadwick P, Hughes S, Russell D, Russell I, Dagnan D. Mindfulness Groups for
Distressing Voices and Paranoia: A Replication and Randomized Feasibility Trial.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2009;37(4):403-12.
34. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Psychosis and schizophrenia in
adults: prevention and management. Clinical guideline [CG178] 2014 [Available from:
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178.
35. Haro JM, Kamath SA, Ochoa S, Novick D, Rele K, Fargas A, et al. The Clinical
Global Impression-Schizophrenia scale: a simple instrument to measure the diversity of
symptoms present in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2003(416):16-23.
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178
15
36. Birchwood M, Trower P. The future of cognitive-behavioural therapy for psychosis:
not a quasi-neuroleptic. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;188:107-8.
37. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of
health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271-92.
38. McCrone P, Patel A, Knapp M, Schene A, Koeter M, Amaddeo F, et al. A comparison
of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health
Policy Econ. 2009;12(1):27-31.
39. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS)
for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76.
40. Birchwood M, Smith J, Cochrane R, Wetton S, Copestake S. The Social Functioning
Scale. The development and validation of a new scale of social adjustment for use in family
intervention programmes with schizophrenic patients. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
1990;157(6):853-9.
41. Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein JL. Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized
Trials: A Review of Recent Methodological Developments. American Journal of Public
Health. 2004;94(3):423-32.
42. Drummond M. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes.
Fourth edition / Michael F. Drummond, Mark J. Sculpher, Karl Claxton, Greg L. Stoddart,
George W. Torrance.. ed. Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW, editors:
Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press; 2015.
43. Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves–facts,
fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):405-15.
44. Henry AG, Jalpa AD, Seema SS, Daniel P. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials.
Oxford, UK: ‘Oxford University Press’; 2014.
16
45. Barrett B, S. B. The challenges of estimating the unit cost of group based therapies.
In: Curtis L, editor. Unit costs of health and social care 2008: Canterbury: Personal Social
Services Research Unit; 2008.
46. Kuyken W, Byford S, Taylor RS, Watkins E, Holden E, White K, et al. Mindfulness-
based cognitive therapy to prevent relapse in recurrent depression. J Consult Clin Psychol.
2008;76(6):966-78.
47. Krol M, Papenburg J, van Exel J. Does including informal care in economic
evaluations matter? A systematic review of inclusion and impact of informal care in cost-
effectiveness studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(2):123-35.
48. Ridyard CH, Hughes DA. Taxonomy for methods of resource use measurement.
Health Econ. 2015;24(3):372-8.
49. Chisholm D, Knapp MR, Knudsen HC, Amaddeo F, Gaite L, van Wijngaarden B.
Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory–European Version: development
of an instrument for international research. EPSILON Study 5. European Psychiatric
Services: Inputs Linked to Outcome Domains and Needs. Br J Psychiatry Suppl.
2000(39):s28-33.
50. Heinrich S, Deister A, Birker T, Hierholzer C, Weigelt I, Zeichner D, et al. Accuracy
of self-reports of mental health care utilization and calculated costs compared to hospital
records. Psychiatry Res. 2011;185(1-2):261-8.
51. Shearer J, McCrone P, Romeo R. Economic Evaluation of Mental Health
Interventions: A Guide to Costing Approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(7):651-64.
52. Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, et al. The World
Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). Journal of
occupational and environmental medicine. 2003;45(2):156-74.
53. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2016: Canterbury: Personal Social
Services Research Unit; 2016.
17
54. Caqueo-Urizar A, Gutierrez-Maldonado J. Burden of care in families of patients with
schizophrenia. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(4):719-24.
55. van den Berg B, Ferrer ICA. Monetary valuation of informal care: the well-being
valuation method. Health Econ. 2007;16(11):1227-44.
56. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, van Roijen L. The friction cost
method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ. 1995;14(2):171-89.
57. Goeree R, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G, Agro K, Goering P. The valuation of
productivity costs due to premature mortality: a comparison of the human-capital and
friction-cost methods for schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry. 1999;44(5):455-63.
58. Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspectives in Clinical Research.
2011;2(3):109-12.
59. Sinharay S, Stern HS, Russell D. The use of multiple imputation for the analysis of
missing data. Psychological methods. 2001;6(4):317-29.
60. Dong Y, Peng C-YJ. Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus.
2013;2:222.
61. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki:
ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama. 2013;310(20):2191-
4.
Assignment Details
Economic Evaluation in Mental Health Assignment
Write a study protocol outlining proposed methods to be used in an economic evaluation within an area related to your own work. The sections listed below should be used as a guide. Your chosen methods should be justified and appropriately referenced throughout.
The word limit is 2500. You must not go over this word limit or you will only be marked to 2500.
1. Introduction, background, literature review (10 marks)
This section should include an introduction to the disease area, existing interventions, the proposed new intervention, and existing evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. It should include a discussion of the expected economic impact of the proposed intervention, and thus justification for the proposed economic evaluation.
2. Policy question, decision-maker, perspective (10 marks)
This section should describe the policy context, policy question and decsion-maker, which should determine the method of economic evaluation and the cost and outcome perspectives.
3. Aims and objectives (5 marks)
This section should include an overarching aim, a list of clinical and economic objectives and clearly stated comparators. Aims and objectives should follow from 2 and 3, above.
4. Trial design, subjects, setting (10 marks)
This section should describe and justify the trial design, describe the study subjects and exclusion and inclusion criteria, and describe the study setting, including recruitment and allocation to groups.
5. Sample size (5 marks)
In this section, students should consider the study sample size, demonstrate understanding of the purpose and methods of such calculations, and the issues relevant to economic evaluation. If calculations are not presented, this should be justified and the implications discussed.
6. Identification, measurement and valuation of outcomes (10 marks)
In general, this section should describe and justify the primary clinical outcome measure, any secondary outcome measures and measures to be used in the economic evaluation.
7. Identification of resources (5 marks)
This section should include a description and justification of the methods to be employed to identify relevant resources. It should include an initial list of resources likely to be relevant to the study.
8. Measurement of resources (5 marks)
This section should describe and justify proposed methods for the measurement of resources identified. These methods need to be feasible and cover all resources identified as relevant.
9. Valuation of resources (10 marks)
This section should describe the valuation of all resources to be measured. A variety of methods can be proposed for different resource types and each should be described and justified.
10. Method of economic evaluation (10 marks)
This section should describe, define and justify the method(s) of economic evaluation to be used (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit analysis etc.).
11. Statistical/sensitivity analysis (5 marks)
This section should describe the proposed statistical approach to (i) differences in cost, (ii) differences in outcome and (iii) the sensitivity of the results to assumptions made.
12. Presentation of results (10 marks)
This section should explain the approach to combining costs and outcomes in order to inform decision making and should include discussion of decision rules and uncertainty. 13. Placing the results in context (5) This section should cover such things as ethical issues, issues of affordability and implementation, and the generalisability of the results.
13. Placing the results in context (5 marks)
This section should cover such things as ethical issues, issues of affordability and implementation, and the generalisability of the results.
SUBMISSION DEADLINE:
Please note: You can submit your work anytime between now and the final submission deadline
Assignment Details
Economic Evaluation in Mental Health Assignment
Write a study protocol outlining proposed methods to be used in an economic evaluation within an area related to your own work. The sections listed below should be used as a guide. Your chosen methods should be justified and appropriately referenced throughout.
The word limit is 2500. You must not go over this word limit or you will only be marked to 2500.
1. Introduction, background, literature review (10 marks)
This section should include an introduction to the disease area, existing interventions, the proposed new intervention, and existing evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. It should include a discussion of the expected economic impact of the proposed intervention, and thus justification for the proposed economic evaluation.
2. Policy question, decision-maker, perspective (10 marks)
This section should describe the policy context, policy question and decsion-maker, which should determine the method of economic evaluation and the cost and outcome perspectives.
3. Aims and objectives (5 marks)
This section should include an overarching aim, a list of clinical and economic objectives and clearly stated comparators. Aims and objectives should follow from 2 and 3, above.
4. Trial design, subjects, setting (10 marks)
This section should describe and justify the trial design, describe the study subjects and exclusion and inclusion criteria, and describe the study setting, including recruitment and allocation to groups.
5. Sample size (5 marks)
In this section, students should consider the study sample size, demonstrate understanding of the purpose and methods of such calculations, and the issues relevant to economic evaluation. If calculations are not presented, this should be justified and the implications discussed.
6. Identification, measurement and valuation of outcomes (10 marks)
In general, this section should describe and justify the primary clinical outcome measure, any secondary outcome measures and measures to be used in the economic evaluation.
7. Identification of resources (5 marks)
This section should include a description and justification of the methods to be employed to identify relevant resources. It should include an initial list of resources likely to be relevant to the study.
8. Measurement of resources (5 marks)
This section should describe and justify proposed methods for the measurement of resources identified. These methods need to be feasible and cover all resources identified as relevant.
9. Valuation of resources (10 marks)
This section should describe the valuation of all resources to be measured. A variety of methods can be proposed for different resource types and each should be described and justified.
10. Method of economic evaluation (10 marks)
This section should describe, define and justify the method(s) of economic evaluation to be used (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit analysis etc.).
11. Statistical/sensitivity analysis (5 marks)
This section should describe the proposed statistical approach to (i) differences in cost, (ii) differences in outcome and (iii) the sensitivity of the results to assumptions made.
12. Presentation of results (10 marks)
This section should explain the approach to combining costs and outcomes in order to inform decision making and should include discussion of decision rules and uncertainty. 13. Placing the results in context (5) This section should cover such things as ethical issues, issues of affordability and implementation, and the generalisability of the results.
13. Placing the results in context (5 marks)
This section should cover such things as ethical issues, issues of affordability and implementation, and the generalisability of the results.
SUBMISSION DEADLINE:
Please note: You can submit your work anytime between now and the final submission deadline
Distinction
A UK based randomised control trial (RCT) of a specialised
online cognitive behavioural therapy for depression in a HIV
positive population (HIVCBT): An economic evaluation
Introduction
HIV is associated with a heightened risk of mental health difficulties(1, 2) and depression
has been acknowledged as the most prominent mental health conditions within this
population(3-7). Prevalence of depression within HIV+ populations fall between 0-80%(6)
and has been linked to adverse outcomes including medication non-adherence(8) and
advanced disease development (9). Due to advances in antiretroviral therapy, HIV+
individuals now have a longer life expectancy(10), therefore alleviating depression may
further improve long-term health outcomes within HIV+ populations.
Depression within HIV+ populations has significant cost implications including, increased use
of provision and medical costs(11). In the UK, 12-18% of expenditure in chronic conditions is
allied to mental health problems, currently £8-13 billion(12). Hence, reduced depression
symptomology within chronic conditions may improve cost outcomes.
Cognitive-behavior focused interventions have been found to be effective within HIV+
populations(6). Extensive research demonstrates cognitive behavioural therapies (CBT) to
be successful(13) and cost-effective(14). Computerised CBT, using fewer resources than
traditional (e.g. practitioner time)(15), has emerged due to technological advances, and has
been found to be again both successful (15) and cost-effective within some settings(16, 17).
Computerised CBT may be an alternative or complimentary treatment for depression within
HIV+ populations and thus aid in reducing the cost burden associated with such co-
morbidities. There is a dearth of literature exploring computerised CBT within HIV+
populations, particularly with regards to economic outcomes. A recent protocol outlines a
study investigating the impact of computerised CBT in HIV populations however, no
economic outcomes are to be investigated(18). This protocol will explore the economic
outcomes of a similar type of intervention, adapted for use within a UK HIV population.
This study will be developed within the UK, to inform decision making regarding resource
allocation and treatment options for depression within HIV+ populations and will aim to
inform both the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)(19) as well as
patients and healthcare providers. A health and social care (HSC inclusive of National Health
Service) perspective will be adopted to adhere to guidance from NICE (19), informing a cost-
utility analysis (CUA). Additionally, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be undertaken from
a patient perspective to inform treatment decision making and clinical care for patients and
healthcare providers(20).
An economic evaluation alongside a RCT will be used to assess the costs and outcomes(20)
associated with HIVCBT together with treatment as usual, comparative to treatment as
usual alone (TAU) within a HIV+ population over 12-months. The objectives will be to
compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the HIVCBT intervention and the TAU
control group, to estimate and assess differences in cost between the HIVCBT and TAU
groups from a HSC and patient perspective, to estimate and explore differences in health
related outcomes between the HIVCBT and TAU groups from a HSC (quality-adjusted life
years; QALY)(21) and patient perspective (Patient health questionnaire measure of
depression; PHQ-9)(22), and to estimate cost-effectiveness at different willingness-to-pay
(WTP) values (20).
Methods
Trial design
An economic evaluation will be conducted alongside a multi-site RCT (individual level) aimed
at exploring the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIVCBT for HIV+ individuals
identified as having depression. An RCT trial design was chosen to maximise the available
information for decision makers(23).
Participants will be recruited from 16 primary care outlets within four UK geographical
counties and will be randomised equally (stratified by geographical location and sex; as
there is a higher proportion HIV+ males comparative to females within the UK)(2) to receive
HIVCBT or TAU. Nine weekly self-led internet-based CBT sessions with a HIV care
component within each session and one face-to-face psychologist-led motivational
interview session at week 4/5, will be included within the HIVCBT intervention. Data will be
collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. A single-blind study will be conducted as
researchers will be masked from participants’ treatment allocation.
Eligible participants must give consent, be over age 18, be diagnosed as HIV+, be newly
diagnosed as having major depressive disorder (identified by PHQ-9 score ≥10)(22), have
access to a device with internet connection and be fluent in the English language. If
participants were currently suicidal or had been suicidal 6 months prior to the study, or did
not have capacity to consent they were excluded from the trial.
Sample size
A sample size of approximately 100 participants in each trial arm will be used. This figure is
based on exploratory studies of computerised CBT comparative to TAU(16, 18, 24, 25). A
normal distribution was assumed. An estimation was used as a pragmatic RCT, with a
sample size based on economic outcomes (i.e. a net monetary benefit above zero)(26), was
not deemed practical as larger sample sizes are required to detect significant economic
outcomes(27), raising issues regarding feasibility, ethics and funding(20). Furthermore, a
sample size estimate based on the primary clinical outcome (a PHQ-9 score reduced by five
points(22); the estimated minimal clinical relevant difference(28)) was too small and would
not allow for adequate extrapolation of results(29, 30).
Outcomes
As a HSC perspective will be adopted, the QALY, the NICE preferred outcome(19), will be
used as a measure of intervention effectiveness within the CUA. The QALY is a standardized
comparable outcome incorporating quantity and quality of life over time that can be used
across differing settings and disease areas(21).
Based on NICE guidance, the EQ-5D-5L, a standardised health related quality of life
measure(31), will be used to assess utility to inform calculations of the QALY(19). The EQ-
5D-5L measures five health domains (self-care, mobility, usual activities, pain and
discomfort, depression and anxiety) across 5 levels and has been found to be a valid and
sensitive measure of depression(31), and has been shown to be valid within HIV+
populations(32), thus suitable for the current trial. The EQ-5D-5L provides health state
values based on valuations from the general populations (UK)(33), which can be used to
identify deviation in utility value and thus calculate the QALY, which measures the
favorability of differing states of health on a scale of 1; best health state to 0; representing
death(34, 35). Utility value difference at baseline, 6 and 12 months will be used to calculate
the QALY(36).
Depression score (PHQ-9)(22),will be used as the primary clinical outcome for the CEA to
inform a patient perspective. The PHQ-9, scored from 0-27, is a reliable measure sensitive to
varying levels of depression(22).
Resources
Treatment and use of provision for HIV+ individuals is complex and multifaceted(37). As
such, focus groups with both service users and heath care experts, the groups exposed most
to resource use, will be undertaken to identify relevant resources from both a HSC
perspective and a patient perspective. Previous literature will supplement this process(20).
Relevant HSC resources are likely are to include: general practitioner, psychologist, nurses
(either practice based or psychiatric), HIV specialist doctor, social workers, training,
specialised clinic (HIV), accident and emergency, overheads, community care. Relevant
resources from a patient perspective are likely to include: patient out-of-pocket expenditure
(i.e. travel costs) and private treatment (mental health).
Intervention focused resources will be identified using focus groups, inclusive of software
developers, clinical experts and patient groups and will be supplemented by the literature.
Intervention relevant resources are likely to include: development costs (programming and
project management), implementation costs; psychologist, overheads, software support,
maintenance and internet usage(38).
Support and service use information for each participant will be measured using the Client
Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI)(39); a self-report questionnaire completed by participants.
The use of the CSRI is appropriate as the questionnaire is a valid measure of care
component and service usage, thus relevant to the HSC perspective being adopted. The CSRI
will be adapted to include all identified resources from both a HSC and a patient
perspective, and will measure both duration and frequency of resource use (including
intervention use)(39). Due to the complex disease trajectory of HIV, HIV+ groups often use
multiple care outlets and therefore it would not be feasible to conduct record searches for
each healthcare outlet used. The CSRI is therefore the most appropriate measure.(40) The
complexity of HIV may result in difficulty attributing service use, as such, detailed
information will be collected and expert opinion will be used to assess service attribution.
Total costs relating to each perspective (HSC/patient) will be obtained from multiplying
costs (per unit) by the duration and incidence of each service and support use. Publically
available records; Department of Health’s NHS reference costs 2015- 2016(41) and Unit Cost
of Health and Social Care 2016 (PSSRU)(42), will be used to establish HSC services and
alternative service costs inclusive of professionals’ salaries, respectively. Median costs will
be used to obtain average valuations of appropriate overheads and salaries. Patient
expenditure and private services (from a patient perspective) will be based on market
value(20).
Development and execution costs associated with the internet-based intervention will be
obtained from the software developer and costs of development will be apportioned to the
projected software lifespan(38). Internet usage costs will be based on market value. These
costs will be supplemented by incidence and duration data to be obtained from the CSRI to
establish contact time with a psychologist within the intervention. The PSSRU will be used to
obtain psychologists training requirements and per hour contact costs(42) and the
Department of Health’s NHS reference costs 2015- 2016 will be used to obtain costs of
overheads(41).
Economic evaluation
Both CEA and CUA are to be used to assess cost-effectiveness as different outcome
measures of effectiveness based on differing perspectives are to be used. Cost-effectiveness
will be explored by means of comparing additional health improvements (QALY gain in the
CUA and five-point improvement in PHQ-9 score(22, 28) in the CEA) to additional costs.(20)
CEA involves assessing and comparing the costs and outcomes of differing treatment
trajectories (20). A CEA will be undertaken, to assess costs and outcomes in the HIVCBT
group comparative to the TAU group. CEA uses a disease specific (natural) outcome(20)
here, PHQ-9 score(22), and is deemed appropriate in this instance as the CEA is to be
undertaken to inform patient choice regarding treatment of depression within a HIV+
population and thus a measure of clinical effectiveness (i.e. the primary clinical outcome) is
required.
CEA does not however explore opportunity costs in relation to alternative treatments and
therefore to inform decision making bodies’ (i.e. NICE) resource allocation a generic
measure is required(19, 20). Hence, a CUA, based on NICE guidance, will be undertaken
from a HSC perspective(19). CUA aims to determine cost in relation to utilities in trajectories
of treatment action and uses a general health improvement measure (QALY) that can be
used comparatively across different disease areas and settings(21). Here, CUA will be used
to assess the costs associated with gaining a single QALY in the HIVCBT group comparative
to TAU group. This will allow for opportunity costs based on the notion of implementing
treatments to be assessed at differing WTP values(20).
Statistical/sensitivity analysis
All analysis will be completed on an intention to treat basis(43). Differences in cost between
HIVCBT and TAU alone and outcome (QALY and PHQ-9 score) between the trial arms, will be
estimated using multiple regression analysis(44). Potential confounders will be adjusted for
including, baseline characteristics, recruitment site (i.e. to account for clustering effects e.g.
therapist) baseline costs and repeated measures.
Non-parametric bootstrapping (5000 times) will be used to address uncertainty by
establishing 95% confidence intervals for the net monetary benefit approach to establish
cost effectiveness acceptability curves (below)(26, 45, 46). To further address uncertainty,
multiple one-way sensitivity analyses will be undertaken to increasing the robustness of
results. These will explore variations in parameters including differing salaries and training
costs for the psychologist in the intervention, missing data (costs and outcomes) will also be
imputed (using a multiple imputation method) (47) and compared to complete data to
explore the impact of alternative assumptions on cost-effectiveness.
Results
Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) for the CEA are to be calculated as difference in
mean cost (patient perspective) between the HIVCBT and TAU trial arms divided by the
difference in mean depression score (PHQ-9)(22) between the trial arms to establish cost
per five-point reduction in depression score. The ICER for the CUA are to be calculated as
the difference in mean cost (HSC perspective) between the HIVCBT and TAU trial arms
divided by the difference in mean QALY(21) between the trial arms to establish cost per
additional QALY(20).
CEA
𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑅 =
𝐻𝐼𝑉𝐶𝐵𝑇 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒) − 𝑇𝐴𝑈 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒)
𝐻𝐼𝑉𝐶𝐵𝑇 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑃𝐻𝑄9 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑃𝐻𝑄9 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒
CUA
𝐼𝐶𝐸𝑅 =
𝐻𝐼𝑉𝐶𝐵𝑇 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝐻𝑆𝐶 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒) − 𝑇𝐴𝑈 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 (𝐻𝑆𝐶 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒)
𝐻𝐼𝑉𝐶𝐵𝑇 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑄𝐴𝐿𝑌 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑄𝐴𝐿𝑌
Cost-effectiveness planes will be formed to establish any dominance as well as explore
uncertainty and variation in estimates of cost-effectiveness using 95% confidence intervals
established from non-parametric bootstrapping(46), (also used to inform the net monetary
benefit approach [NMB]).
The NMB will be used in both the CUA and CEA to combine both costs and outcomes within
a single scale and establish cost-effectiveness. The NMB multiplies willingness-to-pay () by
the difference in outcomes (i.e. mean PHQ-9 score(22) in the CEA and mean QALY in the
CUA) between each trial arm (HIVCBT vs. TAU) and from this total subtracts the difference in
costs between each trial arm (HIVCBT vs. TAU). If the resulting value is greater than zero,
then the intervention will be considered cost-effective(26).
Based on this data, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) can be produced to
provide an overview of value(26) and calculate the likelihood that HIVCBT is cost-effective at
differing WTP values (48). Cost-effective points plotted in the CEAC are derived from the
cost-effectiveness plane (excluding the NE quadrant)(49). WTP values between £0-50,000
will be investigated so to incorporate the ceiling ratio of £20000-30000 recommended by
NICE (19) for a single QALY gain.
Results in context
An economic evaluation of specialised computerised CBT within a HIV+ population has not
been conducted previously. This trial aims to inform patient groups, providers of healthcare
and policy makers. Some considerations should be noted. Based online, HIVCBT has the
potential for extensive implementation and may be a useful alternative or collaborative care
approach for HIV+ individuals using minimal resources(50). However, adaptations may be
required to implement the intervention across cultures.
Ethically it is not deemed as appropriate to deny HIVCBT to the TAU group. Hence, this
group will be offered HIVCBT alongside their TAU at both 6 and 12-month follow-up. Data
will be excluded from the analysis accordingly(51).
While cost-effectiveness will be explored, affordability will not directly be assessed. Budgets
constrain policy makers, and while cost-effective, interventions may be unaffordable.
Further study could incorporate ‘affordability curves’ to provide data on both cost-
effectiveness and affordability to better inform policy makers and other potential
stakeholders(52).
A pragmatic RCT was not undertaken and as such this study will only present estimates of
cost-effectiveness(23, 27). A larger sample size is required to establish confidence in cost-
effectiveness estimates(27). Further research, (e.g. conducting a decision analytic model)
would also allow for the generalisability of the CUA/CEA across differing settings(53).
References
1. Bing EG, Burnam M, Longshore D, et al. Psychiatric disorders and drug use among
human immunodeficiency virus–infected adults in the united states. Archives of General
Psychiatry. 2001;58(8):721-8.
2. Kirwan PD Chau C, Brown AE, Gill ON, Delpech VC and contributors. HIV in the UK –
2016 report. Public Health England, London; 2016.
3. Rabkin JG. HIV and depression: 2008 review and update. Current HIV/AIDS Reports.
2008;5(4):163-71.
4. Do AN, Rosenberg ES, Sullivan PS, Beer L, Strine TW, Schulden JD, et al. Excess
burden of depression among HIV-infected persons receiving medical care in the United
States: data from the medical monitoring project and the behavioral risk factor surveillance
system. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92842.
5. Ciesla JA, Roberts JE. Meta-analysis of the relationship between HIV infection and
risk for depressive disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2001;158(5):725-30.
6. Sherr L, Clucas C, Harding R, Sibley E, Catalan J. HIV and depression–a systematic
review of interventions. Psychology, health & medicine. 2011;16(5):493-527.
7. Eller L, Rivero-Mendez M, Voss J, Chen W-T, Chaiphibalsarisdi P, Iipinge S, et al.
Depressive symptoms, self-esteem, HIV symptom management self-efficacy and self-
compassion in people living with HIV. AIDS care. 2014;26(7):795-803.
8. Harding R, Lampe FC, Norwood S, Date HL, Clucas C, Fisher M, et al. Symptoms are
highly prevalent among HIV outpatients and associated with poor adherence and
unprotected sexual intercourse. Sexually transmitted infections. 2010:sti. 2009.038505.
9. Leserman J. Role of depression, stress, and trauma in HIV disease progression.
Psychosomatic Medicine. 2008;70(5):539-45.
10. Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration. Life expectancy of individuals on
combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: a collaborative analysis of 14
cohort studies. The Lancet. 2008;372(9635):293-9.
11. Williams P, Narciso L, Browne G, Roberts J, Weir R, Gafni A. The prevalence,
correlates, and costs of depression in people living with HIV/AIDS in Ontario: Implications
for service directions. AIDS Education & Prevention. 2005;17(2):119-30.
12. Naylor C, Parsonage, M., McDaid, D., Knapp, M., Fossey, M., Galea, A. Long-term
conditions and mental health: The cost of co-morbidities. London: The King’s Fund and
Centre for Mental Health 2012.
13. Hofmann SG, Asnaani A, Vonk IJ, Sawyer AT, Fang A. The efficacy of cognitive
behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive therapy and research.
2012;36(5):427-40.
14. Bower P, Byford S, Sibbald B, Ward E, King M, Lloyd M, et al. Randomised controlled
trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive-behaviour therapy, and usual general
practitioner care for patients with depression. II: Cost effectiveness. BMJ (Clinical research
ed). 2000;321(7273):1389-92.
15. Kaltenthaler E, Parry G, Beverley C, Ferriter M. Computerised cognitive–behavioural
therapy for depression: systematic review. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
2008;193(3):181-4.
16. Kaltenthaler E, Brazier J, De Nigris E, Tumur I, Ferriter M, Beverley C, et al.
Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update: a systematic
review and economic evaluation. Health technology assessment. 2006;10(33):1-186.
17. Hedman E, Ljótsson B, Lindefors N. Cognitive behavior therapy via the Internet: a
systematic review of applications, clinical efficacy and cost–effectiveness. Expert review of
pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2012;12(6):745-64.
18. van Luenen S, Kraaij V, Spinhoven P, Garnefski N. An Internet-based self-help
intervention for people with HIV and depressive symptoms: study protocol for a randomized
controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):172.
19. National Institue for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of
technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
20. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the
economic evaluation of health care programmes: Oxford university press; 2015.
21. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities.
British medical bulletin. 2010;96(1):5-21.
22. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Phq‐9. Journal of general internal medicine.
2001;16(9):606-13.
23. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials:
design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2011;342:d1548.
24. McCrone P, Knapp M, Proudfoot J, Ryden C, Cavanagh K, Shapiro DA, et al. Cost-
effectiveness of computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression in
primary care: randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2004;185(1):55-
62.
25. Gerhards S, De Graaf L, Jacobs L, Severens J, Huibers M, Arntz A, et al. Economic
evaluation of online computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy without support for
depression in primary care: randomised trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
2010;196(4):310-8.
26. O’Brien B, Briggs A. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies:
an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Statistical methods in medical research.
2002;11(6):455-68.
27. Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters. British Medical Journal.
2000;321(7273):1362.
28. Löwe B, Unützer J, Callahan CM, Perkins AJ, Kroenke K. Monitoring depression
treatment outcomes with the patient health questionnaire-9. Medical care.
2004;42(12):1194-201.
29. Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be
analysed? BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2000;320(7243):1197.
30. Al MJ, van Hout BA, Michel BC, Rutten FF. Sample size calculation in economic
evaluations. Health economics. 1998;7(4):327-35.
31. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and
preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of life
research. 2011;20(10):1727-36.
32. Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen LT. Quality of life profile and psychometric properties
of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2012;10(1):132.
33. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK
general population survey: University of York, Centre for Health Economics York; 1995.
34. Prieto L, Sacristan JA. Problems and solutions in calculating quality-adjusted life
years (QALYs). Health and quality of life outcomes. 2003;1:80.
35. Sassi F. Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health policy and
planning. 2006;21(5):402-8.
36. Richardson G, Manca A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published
literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health economics. 2004;13(12):1203-
10.
37. Baer MR, Roberts J. Complex HIV treatment regimens and patients quality of life.
Canadian Psychology. 2002;43(2):115.
38. Shearer J, McCrone P, Romeo R. Economic Evaluation of Mental Health
Interventions: A Guide to Costing Approaches. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(7):651-64.
39. Beecham J, Knapp M. Costing psychiatric interventions: Gaskell London; 2001.
40. Byford S, Leese M, Knapp M, Seivewright H, Cameron S, Jones V, et al. Comparison of
alternative methods of collection of service use data for the economic evaluation of health
care interventions. Health economics. 2007;16(5):531-6.
41. Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2015 to 2016. London: Department of
Health; 2016.
42. Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2016. Canterbury: Personal
Social Services Research Unit 2016.
43. Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-
effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—an ISPOR Good Research Practices Task
Force report. Value in Health. 2015;18(2):161-72.
44. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and
subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data. Health economics.
2004;13(5):461-75.
45. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐
effectiveness plane. Health economics. 1998;7(8):723-40.
46. Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves–facts,
fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health economics. 2004;13(5):405-15.
47. Thabane L, Mbuagbaw L, Zhang S, Samaan Z, Marcucci M, Ye C, et al. A tutorial on
sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how. BMC medical research
methodology. 2013;13:92.
48. Hunink MG, Bult JR, de Vries J, Weinstein MC. Uncertainty in decision models
analyzing cost-effectiveness: the joint distribution of incremental costs and effectiveness
evaluated with a nonparametric bootstrap method. Medical decision making : an
international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 1998;18(3):337-46.
49. Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The British
Journal of Psychiatry. 2005;187(2):106-8.
50. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates
from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social problems. 2002;49(1):11-34.
51. Nardini C. The ethics of clinical trials. ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:387.
52. Sendi PP, Briggs AH. Affordability and cost-effectiveness: decision-making on the
cost-effectiveness plane. Health economics. 2001;10(7):675-80.
53. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al.
Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2004;8(49):iii-iv, 1-192.
1
Family-based psychosocial intervention for returning child soldiers in Central African
Republic: a randomised control trial with economic evaluation
Background
The 2007 Paris Principles(1) defines “a child associated with an armed force or armed group”
(CAFFAG) as “any person below 18 years of age who is or who has been recruited or used by
an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys,
and girls used as fighters, cooks, porters, messengers, spies, or for sexual purposes. It does
not only refer to a child who is taking or has taken a direct part in hostilities.” These
CAAFAG, also known as child soldiers(2) , witness and experience a range of traumatising
events in combat, causing child soldiers who have been released to have very low emotional
well-being: child soldiers suffer from a variety of mental illnesses including posttraumatic
stress disorder, depression, and anxiety(3). This state of health makes returning home a very
disorienting experience for these soldiers and it is extremely important for their families and
communities to accept and support them through this time of change. However, the
children’s homes are usually within conflict zones, and their families and community
members have also been traumatised and disoriented. Lack of education and preparedness,
fear, spirituality, and recognised behavioural differences in the child (e.g. hostility, anger,
unable to handle situations without violence(4)) create stigmatising attitudes and behaviours
amongst family members and the community(5) hindering successful reintegration of these
children. Research has shown that child soldiers who are supported by their family upon
their return are more likely to be socially reintegrated and have higher emotional well-being
than those stigmatised and rejected, and, lack of social support has been shown to increase
risk for PTSD, anxiety, and depression(6). Also, it’s been reported(4) that PTSD in returned
child soldiers are vulnerable to viewing the world as “good versus bad,” encouraging violent
2
behaviour and reactions outside of fighting and in their communities, potentially leading to
increased contact with criminal justice system. Humanitarian aids have guidelines(1) to
support their staff in the reintegration and reunification process, but are consistently met
with the challenges listed above. A family-based psychosocial intervention could support
psychosocial adjustment(7), decrease the risk of mental illness and encourage reintegration
of child soldiers cross-culturally, but no policy is currently in place to allow automatic use of
such a tool.
Policy context, target audience, perspective
A recent peace deal in the Central African Republic (CAR) has enabled the release of
hundreds of children since May of 2015(8), and along with retracing these children to their
homes, UNICEF, with support from public sector partners (i.e. the U.N.), has been working
feverishly to promote reintegration. To help facilitate successful reintegration while using
the research base above, this study would like to explore the usefulness and cost of a
family-based psychosocial intervention for recently reunited child soldiers and families.
From the perspective of services provided by the public sector of humanitarian aids and the
criminal justice system, and with consideration of funding from the charity UNICEF, is a
caregiver-child family-based psychosocial intervention program for returning child soldiers
preferable to the current, non-existent family-based psychosocial intervention program?
Aims and objectives
This economic evaluation will examine the effects and cost-effectiveness of a caregiver-child
family-based psychosocial intervention program to strengthen families and support positive
reintegration of returning child soldiers. A randomised control trial design will be used to
compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention with that of routine
3
practice, which currently stands as non-existent. The evaluation will compare the monetary
costs and effects of the 4-week intervention with the effects of the control (no intervention)
on the child soldier’s emotional well-being, rate of social integration, and amount of
interaction with the criminal justice system.
Trial design
A two-armed, clustered, pragmatic randomised control trial (RCT) will be performed. After
receiving approval from UNICEF, this study will recruit through the matches made in the
tracing process. Consent will be obtained from both the child and caregiver. Participants will
be groups of similar demographics (village, gender, and age group) and we will use a
computer generated sequence to randomly assign groups to the intervention or control(9).
To reduce selection bias, the person recruiting participants will be concealed from
treatment allocation and the person allocating the group assignment will have no previous
interaction with the participants.
Setting
The setting will take place in communities throughout CAR. The initial release of over 300
child soldiers happened in the town of Bambari in 2015(8). We will begin recruitment with
the matched families of those children.
Participants
A participant involves one child soldier and his or her caregiver. This study will include
children that fit within the definition of a child soldier given by the 2007 Paris Principles,
referenced above. Children will have served at least one month in armed forces(6) abducted
by the armed forces. Accounting for any possible intended disagreement during
4
intervention, we will exclude children who had volunteered to be in armed forces will be
excluded. The caregiver is defined as having full responsibility/guardianship of the child and
will only be included as such. A final exclusion factor for both caregiver and child will be the
result of any psychosis symptoms present or show severe substance abuse based on results
of an initial psychological screening.
Intervention
This intervention will be run similarly to that of a pilot study(10) recently run on children and
their caregivers living in conflict zones. Measures will be collected pre-intervention, post-
intervention (4 weeks), and at a 3-month follow-up. This is a group-based psychosocial
intervention. It consists of 2-hour blocks, three times a week for four weeks. It will consist of
seven chapters of training including: 1) Psychoeducation, 2) Relaxation Techniques(11), 3)
creative problem-solving techniques to tackle big family issues that may arise, 4)
interpersonal communication, 5) community-based conflict resolution methods, 6) effective
parenting and child contribution, and 7) a summary of learned practices. A trained
teacher/group leader will run each group.
According to established good practice(12) measures and materials not currently in CAR’s
official languages, French or Sangho, will go through a process of translation and adaptation
before commencing the study, ensuring coherency with language and local cultural
definitions. Accounting for the illiteracy rates in CAR(13), it’s possible some participants may
not be able to read. Therefore, research assistants will be prepared to read questions from
the measures in the official languages.
Sample size
5
Data on mental illness interventions and reintegration processes for child soldiers in CAR is
scarce, and general family-based interventions are yet to be verified in similar populations
around the world(7). However, the pilot study, which we are basing our intervention from,
worked with a conflict affected population and although not child soldiers, these children
witnessed traumatizing events such as torture and massacre. If we use this as a comparison,
we can adapt the means of both groups from the depression/anxiety outcome from this
study in a power sample calculation(14). The calculation predicted a sample size of 116 to be
significant to the true population for this study.
Identification, measurement and valuation of outcomes
The primary clinical outcome for this study will be lower internalising symptomology in the
intervention arm. Secondary outcomes will include less conduct problems, higher pro-social
behaviour, more social integration, and less interaction with the criminal justice system for
those in the intervention arm. The African Youth Psychosocial Assessment Instrument
(AYPA)(15) is an African based, validated questionnaire(16), and will be used to measure
internalising symptoms, conduct problems, and pro-social behaviour. Due to cultural
differences, past research has relied on creating a local measure for community
reintegration(6),therefore our study will create a local 11-question measure for integration.
Interaction with the criminal justice system will be measured through self-report and
interview from both the child and guardian, and short interviews will be conducted with
local community members. The World Health Organization Quality Of Life-Spirituality,
Religiousness and Personal Beliefs Field-Test Instrument (WHOQOL-SRPB)(17) is based off of
(and used in tandem with) the original WHOQOL-100(18) but includes a domain to analyse
the religious and spiritual influences on cultures’ perspectives. This will be used to collect a
6
generic quality of life measure to be used in for the statistical analysis of this economic
evaluation.
Identification, measurement, and valuation of resources
This table represents all identified resources with methods for measuring and valuing those
resources. Literature supporting the chosen methods and available resources are
referenced within.
Type of Resource
Identified
Method for Measuring Resource Valuation of Resource
Staff:
Teachers/Group leaders
for 8 session
intervention
– Documented hours of direct
contact with the group
– Records and diaries for any
indirect time spent on
materials
– Reference to current
UNICEF salaries for staff
members. Wages/salary
per teacher will be
divided by hours of
contact worked per
week to give a final
value of cost per hour.
– Per literature(19), client-
related time will be
calculated using the
ratio of direct and
indirect
Training of staff:
Trainers, facility,
materials
– Document hours of
contact the trainer spent
teaching staff.
– Hours spent at facility for
training
– Unit prices for materials
– Reference to
organization
supplying the
intervention
materials and trainer
for unit prices(20).
– Divide the annual
7
overhead cost of the
facility by hours
spent for unit price
per hour
Intervention materials:
“Relaxation Technique”
scripts, cinema clips,
extra supplies (pencils,
paper, etc.), tablet for
cinema
clips
– Count for number of
scripts needed for each
participant/group (some
may be shared), purchase
of one set of cinema clips,
final participant
involvement for number of
pencils/paper, and one
tablet
– Trauma-Focused CBT
website for price of
scripts(11)
– Provider’s listed
price for cinema
clips
– Local store unit
prices for extra
supplies
– Unit price for tablet
at local supplier
Facility:
Space for therapy
– Document number of
hours spent at facility
during intervention
– Account for any extra
furniture that may need to
be purchased
– Annual overhead
and capital price for
facility divided by
amount of hours
spent in the space
for unit price per
hour(19)
– Local supplier for
unit costs for extra
furniture
Criminal Justice System:
Contact
– Self-report from child
– Interview/report from
guardian
– Interview/report from
community members
– Price/reports of
costs(19) from
criminal justice
system (hourly wage
of officer, any time
spent in cell)
8
– Consequence
valuation(19): Cost of
property loss and
lost production time
if crime was a
robbery from local
store
Method of economic evaluation
This study must accommodate for a more generic form of comparison between treatments
(intervention arm vs. control), therefore a cost-utility analysis will be performed. Quality of
life years (QALY) measured through the EQ-5D(21) is the most preferable incremental unit of
health gain used in order to quantitatively compare benefits produced by the interventions
with monetary costs of the interventions. Unfortunately, the validated EQ-5D is not
applicable to this complex population, and therefore a strict conversion to the well-known
QALY is impossible. However, the WHOQOL-SPRB collects and measures the respondents
perceived quality of life, and higher scores represent a higher quality of life for each of the
five main domains: physical, psychological, level of independence, social relationships, and
environment. So, after calculating mean scores for both arms, we will use the algorithm
provided in the measure manual, then convert scores to a 0-100 rating, divide each score by
100, and produce scores (associated with time of intervention and standardised to a year)
that fit onto a QALY-like cardinal scale of 0 (bad health) to 1 (best health)(22) This will allow
for an incremental unit of intervention effects (or benefits) to compare with monetary costs
in order to statistically quantify a monetary amount for combined cost-effectiveness.
Statistical/sensitivity analysis
9
The study will use an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER)(23) to define a monetary
amount for each QALY-like unit of benefit gained as represented in the following equation:
Cost of the intervention (Ca) [MINUS] cost of control (Cb) (this case, $0)
[DIVIDED BY]
Difference in the psychological domain scores for the intervention (Ea) [MINUS] Difference in
the psychological domain scores for the control (Eb)
An estimation process of non-parametric bootstrapping will be used in order to report an
accurate confidence interval (CI) of 95%(24) to represent any uncertainty in the cost-
effectiveness results computed by the ICER. We chose non-parametric bootstrapping as it is
widely applied in cost-effectiveness analyses, to allow for computational resampling of the
original data to develop an “empirical estimate of the sampling distribution of the ICER.”(24)
Presentation of results
Although we offer a unit of cost per benefit gained, there is no current threshold to denote
a willingness-to-pay for a QALY-like unit offered by the government in CAR, creating
uncertainty of how this cost-effectiveness result will place on a larger scale. UNICEF has a
working budget (fluctuating with donations) for humanitarian aid in CAR(25), but this is for all
causes, and with the influx of released child soldiers to support, it is difficult to define a
worthy threshold. We hope this cost-utility analysis will be useful for decision-makers as the
situation progresses. Variability of individual Reponses to treatment must be accounted for
when preparing the decision(24). Also, the parameters offered above (with a standardised life
year) is based upon the assumption that the treatment will have lasting effects outside of
the time observed. It is unknown when the conflict will desist, and this brings further
10
uncertainty to how well the benefits of the treatment will intervene with on-going stress.
Time-horizons should also be considered. It is uncertain what environment and priority
changes this conflict zone might bring, and the possibility of a sudden change in available
funds and staff due to reallocation for an emergency (i.e. mass bombing requiring mass
population first aid) could affect the intervention process.
Placing the results in context
As mentioned above, UNICEF may not be able to afford this intervention due to limited
funds currently allocated for expenses in CAR, lack of strict funds for child soldier
reintegration, fluctuating amounts dependent on donations, and uncertainty of future
disasters that may absorb funds and staff being used for child soldier reintegration. These
results are also not generalizable to the international population of child soldiers because of
the varying response to intervention being related to cultural standards (i.e. Nepali soldiers’
reintegration success also depends on their caste(6)).
11
References
1. Fund UNICsE. Paris principles. New York, NY; 2007.
2. Kohrt BA, Yang M, Rai S, Bhardwaj A, Tol WA, Jordans MJ. Recruitment of child
soldiers in Nepal: Mental health status and risk factors for voluntary participation of youth
in armed groups. Peace Confl. 2016;22(3):208-16.
3. Pine DS, Costello, J., and Masten, A. . Trauma, proximity, and developmental
psychopathology: the effects of war and terrorism on children. Neuropsychopharmacology.
2005;30:1781-92.
4. Schauer EaE, T. The psychological impact of child soldiering. In: Martz E, editor.
Trauma rehabilitation after war and conflict: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC; 2010. p.
311-60.
5. Betancourt TS, Agnew-Blais, J., Gilman, S.E., Williams, D.R., & Ellis, B.H. Past horrors,
present struggles: The role of stigma in the association between war experiences and
psychosocial adjustment among former child soldiers in Sierra Leone Social Science &
Medicine. 2010;70(1):17-26.
6. Adhikari RP, Kohrt, B.A., Luitel, N.P., Upadhaya, N., Gurung, D. & Jordans, M.J.D.
Protective and risk factors of psychosocial wellbeing related to the reintegration of former
child soldiers in Nepal. Intervention. 2014;12(3):367-78.
7. Brown FL, de Graaff, A.M., Annan, J., & Betancourt, T.S. Annual Research Review:
Breaking cycles of violence–a systematic review and common practice elementsanalysis of
psychosocial interventions for children andyouth affected by armed conflict. The Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2016.
8. UNICEF. News note: Hundreds of children released by armed groups in Central
African Republic 2015 [updated 14/05/2014. Available from:
https://www.unicef.org/media/media_81890.html.
9. Random.org. Sequence generator. 2017.
10. O’Callaghan P, Branham, L., Shannon, C., Betancourt, T.S., Dempster, M., &
McMullen, J. . A pilot study of a family focused, psychosocial intervention with war-exposed
youth at risk of attack and abduction in north-eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Child
Abuse & Neglect. 2014;38(7):1197-207.
https://www.unicef.org/media/media_81890.html
12
11. Carolina MUoS. TF-CBTWeb: a web-based learning course for trauma-focused
cognitive behavioral therapy 2005 [Available from: https://tfcbt.musc.edu/.
12. Prince MJ. Cross-cultural research methods and practice. In: Patel V, Minsa, Harry,
Cohen, Alex, and Prince, Martin, editor. Global mental health: principles and practice:
Oxford University Press; 2013.
13. BBC. Central African Republic country profile 2016 [updated 21/11/2016. Available
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13150040.
14. LLC C. Sample size calculator. 2017.
15. Betancourt TS, Bass, J., Borisova, I., Neugebauer, R., Speelman, L., Onyango, G., &
Bolton, P. Assessing local instrument reliability and validity: a field-based example from
northern Uganda. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2009;44(8):685-92.
16. Betancourt TS, Yang, F., Bolton, P., & Normand, S.L. Developing an African youth
psychosocial assessment: An application of item response theory. International Journal of
Methods in Psychiatric Research 2014.
17. Organization WH. The World Health Organization Quality of Life 2012 [Available
from: http://www.who.int/mental_health/publications/whoqol/en/.
18. Organization WH. WHOQOL-SRPB Field-Test Instrument. 2002.
19. Shearer J, McCrone, P., and Romeo, R. Economic Evaluation of Mental Health
Interventions: A Guide to Costing Approaches. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(7):651-64.
20. Selvam S, G. Scaffoldings: training young people in christian life skills Nairobi2011
[Available from: http://www.sahayaselvam.org/2011/08/11/scaffoldings-training-young-
people-in-christian-lifeskills/.
21. Foundation ER. EQ-5D 2017 [Available from: http://www.euroqol.org/faqs/eq-5d-
5l.html.
22. Salize HJ, Jacke, C., Kief, S., Franz, M., & Mann, K. Treating alcoholism reduces
financial burden on care-givers and increases quality-adjusted life years. Addiction.
2013;108(1):62-70.
23. Fox-Rushby JaC, John. Economic evaluation: McGraw-Hill Education; 2007.
24. Drummond MF, Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G.L., and Torrance, G.W..
Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4 ed: OUP Oxford; 2015.
25. UNICEF. Central African Republic: country program document 2012-2016. 2011.
https://tfcbt.musc.edu/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13150040
http://www.who.int/mental_health/publications/whoqol/en/
http://www.euroqol.org/faqs/eq-5d-5l.html
http://www.euroqol.org/faqs/eq-5d-5l.html
13