Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T12:50:38.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A cost-utility analysis of psychoanalysis versus psychoanalytic psychotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Caspar C. Berghout
Affiliation:
Netherlands Psychoanalytic Institute and VU University
Jolien Zevalkink
Affiliation:
Netherlands Psychoanalytic Institute and Radboud University
Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
Affiliation:
Erasmus Medical Center

Abstract

Objectives: Despite the considerable and growing body of research about the clinical effectiveness of long-term psychoanalytic treatment, relatively little attention has been paid to economic evaluations, particularly with reference to the broader range of societal effects. In this cost-utility study, we examined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of psychoanalysis versus psychoanalytic psychotherapy.

Methods: Incremental costs and effects were estimated by means of cross-sectional measurements in a cohort design (psychoanalysis, n = 78; psychoanalytic psychotherapy, n = 104). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy using the SF-6D. Total costs were calculated from a societal perspective (treatment costs plus other societal costs) and discounted at 4 percent.

Results: Psychoanalysis was more costly than psychoanalytic psychotherapy, but also more effective from a health-related quality of life perspective. The ICER—that is, the extra costs to gain one additional QALY by delivering psychoanalysis instead of psychoanalytic psychotherapy—was estimated at €52,384 per QALY gained.

Conclusions: Our findings show that the cost-utility ratio of psychoanalysis relative to psychoanalytic psychotherapy is within an acceptable range. More research is needed to find out whether cost-utility ratios vary with different types of patients. We also encourage cost-utility analyses comparing psychoanalytic treatment to other forms of (long-term) treatment.

Type
ASSESSMENTS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Aaronson, NK, Muller, M, Cohen, PD, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 health survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:10551068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.Google Scholar
3. Bartak, A, Soeteman, DI, Verheul, R, Busschbach, JJ. Strengthening the status of psychotherapy for personality disorders: An integrated perspective on effects and costs. Can J Psychiatry. 2007;52:803810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Berghout, CC, Zevalkink, J. Clinical significance of long-term psychoanalytic treatment. Bull Menninger Clin. 2009;73:1844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Bickman, L, Rog, DJ. Handbook of applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1998.Google Scholar
6. Brazier, J, Roberts, J, Derevill, M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Brouwer, WBF, Rutten, FFH. Afbakening van het basispakket. De rol van het doelmatigheidscriterium [Demarcation of the basic package. The role of the efficiency criterion]. In: en Zorg, Raad voor de Volksgezondheid, Zicht op zinnige en duurzame zorg. Den Haag: RVZ; 2006:3588.Google Scholar
8. Doidge, N, Simon, B, Brauer, L, et al. Psychoanalytic patients in the U.S., Canada, and Australia: 1.DSM-III-R disorders, indications, previous treatment, medications, and length of treatment. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2002;50:575614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Gabbard, GO. Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice. The DSM-IV edition. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2005.Google Scholar
11. Gabbard, GO. Techniques of psychodynamic psychotherapy. In: Gabbard, GO, ed. Textbook of psychotherapeutic treatments. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2009:4367.Google Scholar
12. Hakkaart-van Roijen, L, Bouwmans, C. Handleiding Short Form—Health and Labour Questionnaire [Manual Short Form—Health and Labour Questionnaire]. Rotterdam: Institute for Medical Technology Assessment/Erasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum Rotterdam; 2007.Google Scholar
13. Hakkaart-van Roijen, L, Straten A van, Donker, M, Tiemens, B. Handleiding Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness (Tic-P) [Manual Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness (Tic-P)]. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit; 2002.Google Scholar
14. Lazar, A, Sandell, R, Grant, J. Do psychoanalytic treatments have positive effects on health and health care utilization? Further findings of the Stockholm Outcome of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis Project (STOPPP). Psychother Res. 2006;16:5166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Leichsenring, F, Rabung, S. Effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:15511565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Oostenbrink, JB, Al, MJ. The analysis of incomplete cost data due to dropout. Health Econ. 2005;14:763776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Oostenbrink, JB, Bouwmans, CAM, Koopmanschap, MA, Rutten, FFH. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek: Methoden en standaardprijzen voor economische evaluaties [Manual for cost research: Methods and unit-prices for economic evaluations]. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2004.Google Scholar
18. Person, ES, Cooper, AM, Gabbard, GO, eds. Textbook of psychoanalysis. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2005.Google Scholar
19. Pirraglia, PA, Rosen, AB, Hermann, RC, Olchanski, NV, Neumann, P. Cost-utility analysis studies of depression management: A systematic review. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:21552162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Sandell, R, Blomberg, J, Lazar, A. When reality doesn't fit the blueprint: Doing research on psychoanalysis and long-term psychotherapy in a public health service program. Psychother Res. 1997;7:333344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Soeteman, DI, Hakkaart-van Roijen, L, Verheul, R, Busschbach, JJV. The economic burden of personality disorders in mental health care. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69:259265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. van Asselt, AD, Dirksen, CD, Arntz, A, et al. Out-patient psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: Cost-effectiveness of schema-focused therapy v. transference-focused psychotherapy. Br J Psychiatry. 2008;192:450457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Walters, SJ, Brazier, JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/4 (accessed January 4, 2003).Google Scholar
24. Ware, JE, Snow, KK, Kolinski, M, Gandeck, B. SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.Google Scholar
25. Zevalkink, J, Berghout, CC. Mental health characteristics of patients assigned to long-term ambulatory psychoanalytic psychotherapy and psychoanalysis in the Netherlands. Psychother Res. 2008;18:316325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed