期刊
BJPSYCH OPEN
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 -出版社
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2023.74
关键词
Intellectual disability; developmental disorders; cost-effectiveness; outcome studies; intensive support
类别
This study investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two IST models operating in England. The findings showed that both models had similar clinical improvement outcomes and comparable costs. Therefore, the choice of service model should be determined by local services, and further research is needed to identify the critical components of IST care.
BackgroundIntensive support teams (ISTs) are recommended for individuals with intellectual disabilities who display behaviours that challenge. However, there is currently little evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IST models operating in England. AimsTo investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IST models. MethodWe carried out a cohort study to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two previously identified IST models (independent and enhanced) in England. Adult participants (n = 226) from 21 ISTs (ten independent and 11 enhanced) were enrolled. The primary outcome was change in challenging behaviour between baseline and 9 months as measured by the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community version 2. ResultsWe found no statistically significant differences between models for the primary outcome (adjusted & beta; = 4.27; 95% CI -6.34 to 14.87; P = 0.430) or any secondary outcomes. Quality-adjusted life-years (0.0158; 95% CI: -0.0088 to 0.0508) and costs (& POUND;3409.95; 95% CI -& POUND;9957.92 to & POUND;4039.89) of the two models were comparable. ConclusionsThe study provides evidence that both models were associated with clinical improvement for similar costs at follow-up. We recommend that the choice of service model should rest with local services. Further research should investigate the critical components of IST care to inform the development of fidelity criteria, and policy makers should consider whether roll out of such teams should be mandated.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据