A Systematic Review of Economic Models Across the Entire Schizophrenia Pathway

Huajie Jin (), Paul Tappenden, Stewart Robinson, Evanthia Achilla, James H. MacCabe, David Aceituno and Sarah Byford
Additional contact information
Huajie Jin: King’s Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
Paul Tappenden: University of Sheffield
Stewart Robinson: Loughborough University
Evanthia Achilla: IQVIA
James H. MacCabe: Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
David Aceituno: King’s Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
Sarah Byford: King’s Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London

PharmacoEconomics, 2020, vol. 38, issue 6, No 2, 537-555

Abstract: Abstract Background Schizophrenia is associated with a high economic burden. Economic models can help to inform resource allocation decisions to maximise benefits to patients. Objectives This systematic review aims to assess the availability, quality and consistency of conclusions of health economic models evaluating the cost effectiveness of interventions for schizophrenia. Methods An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of interventions for schizophrenia published between 2005 and 2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist and the Cooper hierarchy. Model characteristics and conclusions were descriptively summarised. Results Seventy-three models met inclusion criteria. Seventy-eight percent of existing models assessed antipsychotics; however, due to inconsistent conclusions reported by different studies, no antipsychotic can be considered clearly cost effective compared with the others. A very limited number of models suggest that the following non-pharmacological interventions might be cost effective: psychosocial interventions, stratified tests, employment intervention and intensive intervention to improve liaison between primary and secondary care. The quality of included models is generally low due to use of a short time horizon, omission of adverse events of interventions, poor data quality and potential conflicts of interest. Conclusions This review highlights a lack of models for non-pharmacological interventions, and limitations of the existing models, including low quality and inconsistency in conclusions. Recommendations on future modelling approaches for schizophrenia are provided.

Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00895-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:38:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00895-6

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

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00895-6

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 ().