Cost-effectiveness of the HIT programme in patients with schizophrenia and persistent auditory hallucinations

Objective:  To examine the cost‐effectiveness of Hallucination focused Integrative Treatment (HIT) in patients with schizophrenia and a history of persistent auditory hallucinations. Method:  Costs, in and outside the health care sector, and outcomes were registered prospectively during a period of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica 2003-05, Vol.107 (5), p.361-368
Main Authors: Stant, A. D., TenVergert, E. M., Groen, H., Jenner, J. A., Nienhuis, F. J., van de Willige, G., Wiersma, D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Associated treatments
Biological and medical sciences
Cost of Illness
Cost Savings
Cost-Benefit Analysis
cost-benefit analysis (cost-effectiveness)
costs and cost analysis
Female
hallucinations
Hallucinations - economics
Hallucinations - etiology
Hallucinations - therapy
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Netherlands
Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data
Patient Compliance
Patient Satisfaction
Program Evaluation
Prospective Studies
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
schizophrenia
Schizophrenia - complications
Schizophrenia - economics
Schizophrenia - therapy
therapy
Treatments
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective:  To examine the cost‐effectiveness of Hallucination focused Integrative Treatment (HIT) in patients with schizophrenia and a history of persistent auditory hallucinations. Method:  Costs, in and outside the health care sector, and outcomes were registered prospectively during a period of 18 months for patients who received the HIT programme and for patients in the care as usual (CAU) condition. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was used as main outcome measure in the cost‐effectiveness analysis. Bootstrap analyses provided additional information on the skewly distributed costs. Results:  Mean costs per patient in the HIT group ($18 237) were lower than the mean costs per patient in the CAU group ($21 436). Results of the PANSS were slightly in favour of the HIT group. Conclusion:  There appears to be no significant cost‐effectiveness advantage of the HIT programme over CAU. Additional analyses indicated that future application of the HIT programme will, in most cases, lead to a reduction of (non) medical costs.
ISSN:0001-690X
1600-0447
DOI:10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.00102.x