Online ISSN: 1099-176X Print
ISSN: 1091-4358 Copyright © 2016 ICMPE. |
Cost-Effectiveness of Four Parenting Programs and Bibliotherapy for Parents of Children with Conduct Problems |
Filipa Sampaio,1* Pia Enebrink,2 Cathrine Mihalopoulos,3 Inna Feldman1 |
1Department of Women's and
Children's Health, Uppsala University, Sweden |
* Correspondence to: Filipa
Sampaio, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, CHAP
(Muninhuset), Islandsgatan 2, Plan 3, 751 85 Uppsala, Sweden.
Tel. +46-76-710 2425
E-mail: filipa.sampaio@kbh.uu.se
Source of Funding: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. This study was funded by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Cathrine Mihalopoulos is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Researcher Fellowship (1035887).
Abstract |
|
|
Background: Parenting programs and self-help parenting interventions employing written materials are effective in reducing child conduct problems (CP) in the short-term compared to control groups, however evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is insufficient. Few studies have looked at the differences in effects between interventions in the same study design. Aim: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of four parenting programs: Comet, Incredible Years (IY), Cope and Connect, and bibliotherapy, compared to a waitlist control (WC), with a time horizon of 4 months, targeting CP in children aged 3-12 years. Methods: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside an RCT of the four parenting interventions and bibliotherapy compared to a WC. The study sample consisted of 961 parents of 3-12 year-old children with CP. CP was measured by the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Effectiveness was expressed as the proportion of ``recovered'' cases of CP. The time horizon of the study was four months with a limited health sector perspective, including parents' time costs. We performed an initial comparative cost analysis for interventions whose outcomes differed significantly from the WC, and later a cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions whose outcomes differed significantly from both the WC and each other. Secondary analyses were performed: (i) joint outcome ``recovered and improved'', (ii) intervention completers, (iii) exclusion of parents' time costs, (iv) exclusion of training costs. Results: All interventions apart from Connect significantly reduced CP compared to the WC. Of the other interventions Comet resulted in a significantly higher proportion of recovered cases compared to bibliotherapy. A comparative cost analysis of the effective interventions rendered an average cost per recovered case for bibliotherapy of US$ 483, Cope US$ 1972, Comet US$ 3741, and IY US$ 6668. Furthermore, Comet had an ICER of US$ 8375 compared to bibliotherapy. Secondary analyses of ``recovered and improved'' and of intervention completers held Cope as the cheapest alternative. Exclusion of parents' time and training costs did not change the cost-effectiveness results. Discussion: The time horizon for this evaluation is very short. This study also had a limited costing perspective. Results may be interpreted with caution when considering decision-making about value for money. The inclusion of a multi-attribute utility instrument sensitive to domains of quality-of-life impacted by CP in children would be valuable so that pragmatic value for money estimations can be made. Implications for Future Research: Further studies are needed with longer follow-up periods to ascertain on the sustainability of the effects, and fuller economic evaluations and economic modeling to provide insights on longer-term cost-effectiveness. These results also raise the need to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the provision of these interventions as a ``stepped care'' approach. Conclusions: The results suggest the delivery of different programs according to budget constraints and the outcome desired. In the absence of a WTP threshold, bibliotherapy could be a cheap and effective option to initially target CP within a limited budget, whereas Comet could be offered to achieve greater effects based on decision-makers' willingness to make larger investments. In its turn, Cope could be offered when targeting broader outcomes, such as symptom improvement, rather than clinical caseness. |
Received 17 November 2015; accepted 20 August 2016
Copyright © 2016 ICMPE