Value of information analysis of an early intervention for subthreshold panic disorder: Healthcare versus societal perspective

Robbin H Ophuis, Joran Lokkerbol, Juanita A Haagsma, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Silvia M A A Evers and Suzanne Polinder

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 11, 1-13

Abstract: Background: Panic disorder is associated with high productivity costs. These costs, which should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) from a societal perspective, have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness estimates. However, they are often omitted in published CEAs. It is therefore uncertain whether choosing a societal perspective changes priority setting in future research as compared to a healthcare perspective. Objectives: To identify research priorities regarding the cost-effectiveness of an early intervention for subthreshold panic disorder using value of information (VOI) analysis and to investigate to what extent priority setting depends on the perspective. Methods: We calculated the cost-effectiveness of an early intervention for panic disorder from a healthcare perspective and a societal perspective. We performed a VOI analysis, which estimates the expected value of eliminating the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates, for both perspectives. Results: From a healthcare perspective the early intervention was more effective at higher costs compared to usual care (€17,144 per QALY), whereas it was cost-saving from a societal perspective. Additional research to eliminate parameter uncertainty was valued at €129.7 million from a healthcare perspective and €29.5 million from a societal perspective. Additional research on the early intervention utility gain was most valuable from a healthcare perspective, whereas from a societal perspective additional research would generate little added value. Conclusions: Priority setting for future research differed substantially according to the perspective. Our study underlines that the health-economic perspective of CEAs on interventions for panic disorder must be chosen carefully in order to avoid inappropriate choices in research priorities.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205876 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 05876&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0205876

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205876

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().