Cost-effectiveness of a domestic violence and abuse training and support programme in primary care in the real world: updated modelling based on an MRC phase IV observational pragmatic implementation study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) programme using up-to-date real-world information on costs and effectiveness from routine clinical practice. A Markov model was constructed to estimate mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of IRIS versus usual care per woman registered at a general practice from a societal and health service perspective with a 10-year time horizon. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cost-utility analysis in UK general practices, including data from six sites which have been running IRIS for at least 2 years across England. PARTICIPANTS: Based on the Markov model, which uses health states to represent possible outcomes of the intervention, we stipulated a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women aged 16 years or older. INTERVENTIONS: The IRIS trial was a randomised controlled trial that tested the effectiveness of a primary care training and support intervention to improve the response to women experiencing domestic violence and abuse, and found it to be cost-effective. As a result, the IRIS programme has been implemented across the UK, generating data on costs and effectiveness outside a trial context. RESULTS: The IRIS programme saved £14 per woman aged 16 years or older registered in general practice (95% uncertainty interval -£151 to £37) and produced QALY gains of 0.001 per woman (95% uncertainty interval -0.005 to 0.006). The incremental net monetary benefit was positive both from a societal and National Health Service perspective (£42 and £22, respectively) and the IRIS programme was cost-effective in 61% of simulations using real-life data when the cost-effectiveness threshold was £20 000 per QALY gained as advised by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. CONCLUSION: The IRIS programme is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving from a societal perspective in the UK and cost-effective from a health service perspective, although there is considerable uncertainty surrounding these results, reflected in the large uncertainty intervals.

Determinants of consultation rate in patients with anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Although it is recognized that anxiety and depression are associated with frequent attendance in primary care, not all patients with these disorders attend frequently. The factors associated with general practice consultation in the important group of patients with anxiety and depressive disorders are not clear. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine prospectively the factors which predict consultation rate in a cohort of patients with anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care. METHODS: A total of 148 adult patients with a depressive, anxiety or panic disorder (DSM-III criteria) were studied prospectively for 6 months to determine the factors which predicted consultation rate during this time. Measures at baseline included: the Psychiatric Assessment Schedule, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Life Events and Difficulties Schedule, Clinical Anxiety Scale, details of substance misuse and demographic data. The principal outcome measure was the number of consultations recorded in the GP records over the following 6 months. The variables associated with consultation rate were assessed by multiple regression analysis, with number of consultations as the dependent variable. RESULTS: The median consultation rate during the 6 months of the study was five (range: 1-22). Thirty per cent of the sample consulted seven or more times during the 6 months and 10% consulted 12 or more times. The regression analysis demonstrated that the following variables contributed to the best model: prior consultation rate, past psychiatric history, ongoing social difficulties, current level of alcohol consumption, total psychiatric symptom score and total anxiety score. These variables together accounted for 41% of the variance in consultation rate. CONCLUSION: The detection and rigorous treatment of psychiatric disorder, the provision of social support and interventions for alcohol dependence may help to reduce the frequency of consultation of anxious and depressed patients in primary care. Future research to identify additional variables which explain the major part of the variance in consultation rate may pave the way for novel treatment approaches to the phenomenon of frequent attendance.