Senken arbeitsrehabilitative Maßnahmen während stationärpsychiatrischer Behandlung langfristig die Versorgungskosten von Patienten mit Schizophrenie?

Salize, Hans Joachim; Schuh, Christina; Krause, Maik; Reichenbacher, Marita; Stamm, Klaus; Längle, Gerhard

doi:10.1055/s-2006-951949

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings of non-significant differences in costs and effects correspond with the results of Salize et al [43] from 2007, who also could not detect any long-term cost differences in vocational rehabilitation programmes for patients with schizophrenia. However, cross-national results of return-to-work interventions with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) showed strong positive effects on costs associated with work disability due to mental health conditions [20].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The cost-utility of a return-to-work intervention in comparison to routine care for patients with mental disorders in Germany: Results from the RETURN project

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Only two-thirds of patients admitted to psychiatric wards return to their previous jobs. Return-to-work interventions in Germany are investigated for their effectiveness, but information regarding cost-effectiveness is lacking. This study investigates the cost-utility of a return-to-work intervention for patients with mental disorders compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Methods We used data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial including 166 patients from 28 inpatient psychiatric wards providing data at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Health and social care service use was measured with the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Cost-utility analysis was performed by calculating additional costs per one additional QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) gained by receiving the support of return-to-work experts, in comparison to TAU. Results No significant cost or QALY difference between the intervention and control groups has been detected. The return-to-work intervention cannot be identified as cost-effective in comparison to TAU. Conclusions The employment of return-to-work experts could not reach the threshold of providing good value for money. TAU, therefore, seems to be sufficient support for the target group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The cost-utility of a return-to-work intervention in comparison to routine care for patients with mental disorders in Germany: Results from the RETURN project

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Im Gegensatz dazu haben bisherige Studien entweder geschichtete Stichproben aus verschiedenen Versorgungsbereichen verwendet[8,28] oder wesentlich längere Zeiträume erfasst, sodass ein Akutaufenthalt als Rekrutierungsumfeld weniger Gewicht hatte[29 -31]. Im weiteren Verlauf un-Patienten unserer Stichprobe im Vergleich zu jüngeren Arbeiten von Schleuning und Heel[28] und Salize et al[30] auch im postakuten Verlauf ein deutlich größerer prozentualer Anteil der Kosten auf stationäre Versorgung und deutlich weniger auf betreute Wohnformen entfällt. So lag in unseren Verlaufsdaten (Kontrollgruppe) der Anteil der stationären Kosten bei 41 %, der von betreuten Wohnformen bei 23 %.…”

unclassified