Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: a controlled study

Abstract

BackgroundThis study aimed to examine the short- and long term (cost-) effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) compared to care as usual (CAU) in terms of improved child safety, empowerment and social support.MethodsA subgroup of a larger randomized controlled trial, comprising 69 families in child welfare (experimental group: n = 46; control group: n = 23), was included.ResultsNo additional effects of FGC on child safety, social support and only short-term positive effects on empowerment were found. There were no differences in costs between FGC and CAU. The chance for FGC to be cost-effective was small. For families who refused FGC, the FGC approach was more cost-effective than CAU, whereas it was less cost-effective for families that prepared or completed FGC.ConclusionsOverall, FGC is not (cost-)effective in improving child safety, empowerment and social support, but cost-effectiveness varies at different levels of FGC-completion.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register number NTR4320. Registered 17 December 2013.

Economic evaluation methods used in home‐visiting interventions: A systematic search and review

“…Our second aim was to investigate study designs used where randomisation was not appropriate. Fifteen of the 21 studies used data from RCTs where participants were randomised into intervention or control groups at recruitment (Ammerman et al, 2017;Aracena et al, 2009;Au et al, 2006;Barlow et al, 2007Barlow et al, , 2019Bell et al, 2019;Browne et al, 2001;Dalziel et al, 2015;Deidda et al, 2018;Dijkstra et al, 2018;Kuklinski, Oxford, et al, 2020;McIntosh et al, 2009;Sharac et al, 2011;Sonuga-Barke et al, 2018). In Kuklinski, Crowley, et al (2020) the study was based on an RCT; however only the intervention group was investigated.…”

“…We found that more than half the included papers were withintrial cost-effectiveness analyses (Aracena et al, 2009;Barlow et al, 2007Barlow et al, , 2019Dalziel et al, 2015;Dijkstra et al, 2018;Mathewos et al, 2017;McIntosh et al, 2009;Sharac et al, 2011;Sonuga-Barke et al, 2018;Thanh et al, 2015). Cost effectiveness analysis is one of the most commonly used economic analysis methodologies in healthcare, and is concerned with the differential comparison of costs and effects by calculating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (Elliot & Payne, 2005).…”

“…Cost effectiveness analysis is one of the most commonly used economic analysis methodologies in healthcare, and is concerned with the differential comparison of costs and effects by calculating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (Elliot & Payne, 2005). Time-horizons in the included cost-effectiveness studies were generally short: three studies were for 6 months (Dalziel et al, 2015;Sharac et al, 2011;Sonuga-Barke et al, 2018), four studies were for 12-months, (Barlow et al, 2019;Dijkstra et al, 2018;Mathewos et al, 2017;McIntosh et al, 2009), one study was for 15-months (Aracena et al, 2009) and one for 18 months (Barlow et al, 2007). Short time-horizons make it difficult to determine longer-term benefits.…”

“…Most studies did not require discounting, being less than 12 months. Six studies were from a societal perspective (Barlow et al, 2007;Bell et al, 2019;Dalziel et al, 2015;Dijkstra et al, 2018;Kuklinski, Crowley, et al, 2020;Kuklinski, Oxford, et al, 2020), three studies included both societal and healthcare payer perspectives (Barlow et al, 2019;McIntosh et al, 2009;Sonuga-Barke et al, 2018), one study was from a healthcare provider perspective only (Mathewos et al, 2017) and two did not state the perspective (Ammerman et al, 2017;Sharac et al, 2011).…”

“…Fourteen included studies compared the intervention to care-asusual or standard care (Browne et al, 2001;Au et al, 2006;Barlow et al, 2007Barlow et al, , 2019Aracena et al, 2009;McIntosh et al, 2009;Olds et al, 2011;Martin & Lotspeich, 2014;Thanh et al, 2015;Dalziel et al, 2015;Barger et al, 2017;Sonuga-Barke et al, 2018;Deidda et al, 2018;Bell et al, 2019;Kuklinski, Crowley, et al, 2020). Four studies compared two different home intervention strategies (Ammerman et al, 2017;Dijkstra et al, 2018;Mathewos et al, 2017;Sharac et al, 2011). One study compared to a group receiving resources and referral (Kuklinski, Oxford, et al, 2020).…”