Long-term cost-utility analysis of family therapy vs. treatment as usual for young people seen after self-harm

Background

The joint evidence of the cost and the effectiveness of family-based therapies is modest.

Objective

To study the cost-effectiveness of family therapy (FT) versus treatment-as-usual (TAU) for young people seen after self-harm combining data from an 18-month trial and hospital records up to 60-month from randomisation.

Methods

We estimate the cost-effectiveness of FT compared to TAU over 5 years using a quasi-Markov state model based on self-harm hospitalisations where probabilities of belonging in a state are directly estimated from hospital data. The primary outcome is quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Cost perspective is NHS and PSS and includes treatment costs, health care use, and hospital attendances whether it is for self-harm or not. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are conducted.

Results

Both trial arms show a significant decrease in hospitalisations over the 60-month follow-up. In the base case scenario, FT participants incur higher costs (mean +£1,693) and negative incremental QALYs (-0.01) than TAU patients. The associated ICER at 5 years is dominated and the incremental health benefit at the £30,000 per QALY threshold is -0.067. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis finds the probability that FT is cost-effective is around 3 − 2% up to a maximum willingness to pay of £50,000 per QALY. This suggest that the extension of the data to 60 months show no difference in effectiveness between treatments.

Conclusion

Whilst extended trial follow-up from routinely collected statistics is useful to improve the modelling of longer-term cost-effectiveness, FT is not cost-effective relative to TAU and dominated in a cost-utility analysis.