Cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a group-based diet intervention for treating major depression–the HELFIMED trial

Leonie Segal, Asterie Twizeyemariya, Dorota Zarnowiecki, Theo Niyonsenga, Svetlana Bogomolova, Amy Wilson, Kerin O’Dea, Natalie Parletta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background/objectives: Major depression has a negative impact on quality of life, increasing the risk of premature death. It imposes social and economic costs on individuals, families and society. Mental illness is now the leading cause globally of disability/lost quality life and premature mortality. Finding cost-effective treatments for depression is a public health priority. We report an economic evaluation of a dietary intervention for treating major depression. Methods: This economic evaluation drew on the HELFIMED RCT, a 3-month group-based Mediterranean-style diet (MedDiet) intervention (including cooking workshops), against a social group-program for people with major depression. We conducted (i) a cost-utility analysis, utility scores measured at baseline, 3-months and 6-months using the AQoL8D, modelled to 2 years (base case); (ii) a cost-effectiveness analysis, differential cost/case of depression resolved (to normal/mild) measured by the DASS. Differential program costs were calculated from resources use costed in AUD2017. QALYs were discounted at 3.5%pa. Results: Best estimate differential cost/QALY gain per person, MedDiet relative to social group was AUD2775. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying costs, utility gain, model period found 95% likelihood cost/QALY less than AUD20,000. Estimated cost per additional case of depression resolved, MedDiet group relative to social group was AUD2,225. Conclusions: A MedDiet group-program for treating major depression was highly cost-effective relative to a social group-program, measured in terms of cost/QALY gain and cost per case of major depression resolved. Supporting access by persons with major depression to group-based dietary programs should be a policy priority. A change to funding will be needed to realise the potential benefits.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages10
JournalNutritional Neuroscience
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Diet
Costs and Cost Analysis
Depression
Mediterranean Diet
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Premature Mortality
Quality of Life
Health Priorities
Cooking
Health Care Costs
Public Health
Economics
Education

Cite this

Segal, Leonie ; Twizeyemariya, Asterie ; Zarnowiecki, Dorota ; Niyonsenga, Theo ; Bogomolova, Svetlana ; Wilson, Amy ; O’Dea, Kerin ; Parletta, Natalie. / Cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a group-based diet intervention for treating major depression–the HELFIMED trial. In: Nutritional Neuroscience. 2018 ; pp. 1-10.
@article{519f0f6da855482aa127c942c0af7b59,
title = "Cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a group-based diet intervention for treating major depression–the HELFIMED trial",
abstract = "Background/objectives: Major depression has a negative impact on quality of life, increasing the risk of premature death. It imposes social and economic costs on individuals, families and society. Mental illness is now the leading cause globally of disability/lost quality life and premature mortality. Finding cost-effective treatments for depression is a public health priority. We report an economic evaluation of a dietary intervention for treating major depression. Methods: This economic evaluation drew on the HELFIMED RCT, a 3-month group-based Mediterranean-style diet (MedDiet) intervention (including cooking workshops), against a social group-program for people with major depression. We conducted (i) a cost-utility analysis, utility scores measured at baseline, 3-months and 6-months using the AQoL8D, modelled to 2 years (base case); (ii) a cost-effectiveness analysis, differential cost/case of depression resolved (to normal/mild) measured by the DASS. Differential program costs were calculated from resources use costed in AUD2017. QALYs were discounted at 3.5{\%}pa. Results: Best estimate differential cost/QALY gain per person, MedDiet relative to social group was AUD2775. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying costs, utility gain, model period found 95{\%} likelihood cost/QALY less than AUD20,000. Estimated cost per additional case of depression resolved, MedDiet group relative to social group was AUD2,225. Conclusions: A MedDiet group-program for treating major depression was highly cost-effective relative to a social group-program, measured in terms of cost/QALY gain and cost per case of major depression resolved. Supporting access by persons with major depression to group-based dietary programs should be a policy priority. A change to funding will be needed to realise the potential benefits.",
keywords = "cost effectiveness, cost-utility analysis, depression, diet intervention, economic evaluation, Mediterranean diet",
author = "Leonie Segal and Asterie Twizeyemariya and Dorota Zarnowiecki and Theo Niyonsenga and Svetlana Bogomolova and Amy Wilson and Kerin O’Dea and Natalie Parletta",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1080/1028415X.2018.1556896",
language = "English",
pages = "1--10",
journal = "Nutritional Neuroscience",
issn = "1028-415X",
publisher = "Maney Publishing",

}

Cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a group-based diet intervention for treating major depression–the HELFIMED trial. / Segal, Leonie; Twizeyemariya, Asterie; Zarnowiecki, Dorota; Niyonsenga, Theo; Bogomolova, Svetlana; Wilson, Amy; O’Dea, Kerin; Parletta, Natalie.

In: Nutritional Neuroscience, 2018, p. 1-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a group-based diet intervention for treating major depression–the HELFIMED trial

AU - Segal, Leonie

AU - Twizeyemariya, Asterie

AU - Zarnowiecki, Dorota

AU - Niyonsenga, Theo

AU - Bogomolova, Svetlana

AU - Wilson, Amy

AU - O’Dea, Kerin

AU - Parletta, Natalie

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Background/objectives: Major depression has a negative impact on quality of life, increasing the risk of premature death. It imposes social and economic costs on individuals, families and society. Mental illness is now the leading cause globally of disability/lost quality life and premature mortality. Finding cost-effective treatments for depression is a public health priority. We report an economic evaluation of a dietary intervention for treating major depression. Methods: This economic evaluation drew on the HELFIMED RCT, a 3-month group-based Mediterranean-style diet (MedDiet) intervention (including cooking workshops), against a social group-program for people with major depression. We conducted (i) a cost-utility analysis, utility scores measured at baseline, 3-months and 6-months using the AQoL8D, modelled to 2 years (base case); (ii) a cost-effectiveness analysis, differential cost/case of depression resolved (to normal/mild) measured by the DASS. Differential program costs were calculated from resources use costed in AUD2017. QALYs were discounted at 3.5%pa. Results: Best estimate differential cost/QALY gain per person, MedDiet relative to social group was AUD2775. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying costs, utility gain, model period found 95% likelihood cost/QALY less than AUD20,000. Estimated cost per additional case of depression resolved, MedDiet group relative to social group was AUD2,225. Conclusions: A MedDiet group-program for treating major depression was highly cost-effective relative to a social group-program, measured in terms of cost/QALY gain and cost per case of major depression resolved. Supporting access by persons with major depression to group-based dietary programs should be a policy priority. A change to funding will be needed to realise the potential benefits.

AB - Background/objectives: Major depression has a negative impact on quality of life, increasing the risk of premature death. It imposes social and economic costs on individuals, families and society. Mental illness is now the leading cause globally of disability/lost quality life and premature mortality. Finding cost-effective treatments for depression is a public health priority. We report an economic evaluation of a dietary intervention for treating major depression. Methods: This economic evaluation drew on the HELFIMED RCT, a 3-month group-based Mediterranean-style diet (MedDiet) intervention (including cooking workshops), against a social group-program for people with major depression. We conducted (i) a cost-utility analysis, utility scores measured at baseline, 3-months and 6-months using the AQoL8D, modelled to 2 years (base case); (ii) a cost-effectiveness analysis, differential cost/case of depression resolved (to normal/mild) measured by the DASS. Differential program costs were calculated from resources use costed in AUD2017. QALYs were discounted at 3.5%pa. Results: Best estimate differential cost/QALY gain per person, MedDiet relative to social group was AUD2775. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying costs, utility gain, model period found 95% likelihood cost/QALY less than AUD20,000. Estimated cost per additional case of depression resolved, MedDiet group relative to social group was AUD2,225. Conclusions: A MedDiet group-program for treating major depression was highly cost-effective relative to a social group-program, measured in terms of cost/QALY gain and cost per case of major depression resolved. Supporting access by persons with major depression to group-based dietary programs should be a policy priority. A change to funding will be needed to realise the potential benefits.

KW - cost effectiveness

KW - cost-utility analysis

KW - depression

KW - diet intervention

KW - economic evaluation

KW - Mediterranean diet

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059007341&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/cost-effectiveness-costutility-analysis-groupbased-diet-intervention-treating-major-depressionthe-he

U2 - 10.1080/1028415X.2018.1556896

DO - 10.1080/1028415X.2018.1556896

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - Nutritional Neuroscience

JF - Nutritional Neuroscience

SN - 1028-415X

ER -