Table 4.
Results of base-case and sensitivity analyses of the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses: willingness to pay when compared with both control conditions
| Level of willingness to pay when ESM-I is more cost effective than | Percentage at WtP thresholda | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| treatment as usual | pseudo-intervention | ||
| HDRS | € | € | |
| Base-case analysis | 3000 | 4000 | |
| Different GP cost calculation | 3000 | 4000 | |
| Health care perspective | 1500 | 3750 | |
| Complete cases | 2250 | 3000 | |
| NOT controlling for baseline costs | 1250 | 0b | |
| QALY | € | € | % |
| Base-case analysis | 31, 500 | 40, 500 | 46% |
| Dutch instead of UK tariff | 32, 500 | 43, 000 | 44% |
| Different GP cost calculation | 30, 500 | 39, 500 | 45% |
| Health care perspective | 16, 500 | 36, 000 | 64% |
| Complete cases | 23, 500 | 30, 500 | 65% |
| NOT controlling for baseline costs | 11, 500 | 0b | 58% |
aThe probability that ESM-I is most cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000
bA value of €0 indicates that ESM-I is dominant compared with the other intervention, i.e., ESM-I shows more improvement in outcomes at lower costs compared with the other treatment