Skip to main content
. 2017 Jan 6;2017(1):CD007906. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007906.pub3
Costs: 3. Direct costs ‐ other data ‐ skewed data
Study Intervention Mean SD Total Note
all care ‐ by short term
Audini‐UK 1994 1.ICM* 4,264 1,768 33  
Audini‐UK 1994 2. Standard care* 7,202 5,564 29 * Unit cost £, fiscal year 1996/7.
 ** 'Bivariate cost comparisons (after log transformation) revealed significant advantage for ICM group (p=0.001)'.
***Time period: missing (it is not the monthly cost per patient).
all care ‐ by medium term
Marshall‐UK 1995 1. ICM* 1,044 425.3 31  
Marshall‐UK 1995 2. Standard care* 1,108 530.4 30 * Unit cost £, fiscal year 1994.
 ** 'No significant differences between two groups were found.'
***Time period: mean weekly cost.
Morse‐Missouri3 2005 1. ICM* 2,946.8 3,219.3 54  
Morse‐Missouri3 2005 2. Standard care* 1,899.5 3,629.6 49 * Unit cost US $, fiscal year 2001.
 ** 'There was a main effect of treatment condition on total costs, F(2, 146)=4.00, p=0.02, ɧ2=0.05. Standard care condition had significantly lower costs than ICM.'
***Time period: 6 months
all care ‐ by long term
Audini‐UK 1994 1. ICM* 10,192 3,900 32  
Audini‐UK 1994 2. Standard care* 15,288 17,160 28 * Unit cost £, fiscal year 1996/7.
 ** 'Bivariate cost comparisons (after log transformation) did not revealed significant advantage for ICM group (p=0.09)'.
***Time period: missing (it is not the monthly cost per patient).
Ford‐UK 1995 1. ICM* 1,813 1,347 39  
Ford‐UK 1995 2. Standard care* 717 768 38 * Unit cost £, fiscal year not reported, study base year 1990.
 ** 'ANOVA analysis carried on, revealing significant advantage for ICM group (p<0.05).'
***Time period: 12 months.
Marshall‐UK 1995 1. ICM* 996 398 31  
Marshall‐UK 1995 2. Standard care* 1,088 562.4 30 * Unit cost £, fiscal year 1994.
 ** 'No significant differences between two groups were found.'
***Time period: mean weekly cost.
Morse‐Missouri3 2005 1. ICM* 3,190 3,441 54  
Morse‐Missouri3 2005 2. Standard care* 1,467 2,173 49 * Unit cost US $, fiscal year 2001.
** 'There was a main effect of treatment condition on total costs, F(2, 146)=4.00, p=0.02, ɧ2=0.05. Standard care condition had significantly lower costs than ICM.'
***Time period: 6 months.
OPUS‐Denmark 1999 1. ICM* 111,924 100,862 151  
OPUS‐Denmark 1999 2. Standard Care* 137,638 147,570 150 *Unit cost Euro €, fiscal year 2009.
**No significant difference between the groups.
***Time period: FUP 3 years.
specific ‐ outpatient care ‐ by medium term
Cusack‐North Carolina 1. ICM* 13,481 9,547 72 * Unit cost US $.
**Time period: 12 months.
Cusack‐North Carolina 2. Standard care* 5,118 6,184 62 * Unit cost US $.
**Time period: 12 months.
specific ‐ prison ‐ by medium term
Cusack‐North Carolina 1. ICM* 1,848 4,533 72 * Unit cost US $.
**Time period: 12 months.
Cusack‐North Carolina 2. Standard care* 3,530 5,690 62 * Unit cost US $.
**Time period: 12 months.