A Critical Review of Model-Based Economic Studies of Depression

Hossein Ali Afzali (), Jonathan Karnon and Jodi Gray

PharmacoEconomics, 2012, vol. 30, issue 6, 482 pages

Abstract: Depression is the most common mental health disorder and is recognized as a chronic disease characterized by multiple acute episodes/relapses. Although modelling techniques play an increasingly important role in the economic evaluation of depression interventions, comparatively little attention has been paid to issues around modelling studies with a focus on potential biases. This, however, is important as different modelling approaches, variations in model structure and input parameters may produce different results, and hence different policy decisions. This paper presents a critical review of literature on recently published model-based cost-utility studies of depression. Taking depression as an illustrative example, through this review, we discuss a number of specific issues in relation to the use of decision-analytic models including the type of modelling techniques, structure of models and data sources. The potential benefits and limitations of each modelling technique are discussed and factors influencing the choice of modelling techniques are addressed. This review found that model-based studies of depression used various simulation techniques. We note that a discrete-event simulation may be the preferred technique for the economic evaluation of depression due to the greater flexibility with respect to handling time compared with other individual-based modelling techniques. Considering prognosis and management of depression, the structure of the reviewed models are discussed. We argue that a few reviewed models did not include some important structural aspects such as the possibility of relapse or the increased risk of suicide in patients with depression. Finally, the appropriateness of data sources used to estimate input parameters with a focus on transition probabilities is addressed. We argue that the above issues can potentially bias results and reduce the comparability of economic evaluations. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11590500-000000000-00000 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:6:p:461-482

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.2165/11590500-000000000-00000

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().