Population-level cost-effectiveness of implementing evidence-based practices into routine care.

Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Burgess JF. Population-level cost-effectiveness of implementing evidence-based practices into routine care. Health services research. 2014 Dec 1; 49(6):1832-51.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CRE 12-300 – Development and Validation of a Perceived Access Measure
• IIR 00-078 – Telemedicine Intervention to Improve Depression Care in Rural CBOCs
• IMV 04-360 – Implementing Telemedicine-Based Collaborative Care for MDD in Contract CBOCs

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to apply a new methodology (population-level cost-effectiveness analysis) to determine the value of implementing an evidence-based practice in routine care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data are from sequentially conducted studies: a randomized controlled trial and an implementation trial of collaborative care for depression. Both trials were conducted in the same practice setting and population (primary care patients prescribed antidepressants). STUDY DESIGN: The study combined results from a randomized controlled trial and a pre-post-quasi-experimental implementation trial. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The randomized controlled trial collected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from survey and medication possession ratios (MPRs) from administrative data. The implementation trial collected MPRs and intervention costs from administrative data and implementation costs from survey. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In the randomized controlled trial, MPRs were significantly correlated with QALYs (p = .03). In the implementation trial, patients at implementation sites had significantly higher MPRs (p = .01) than patients at control sites, and by extrapolation higher QALYs (0.00188). Total costs (implementation, intervention) were nonsignificantly higher ($63.76) at implementation sites. The incremental population-level cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,905.92/QALY (bootstrap interquartile range -$45,343.10/QALY to $99,260.90/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The methodology was feasible to operationalize and gave reasonable estimates of implementation value.