Cost-effectiveness of the children and young People's health partnership (CYPHP) model of integrated care versus enhanced usual care: analysis of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in South London

Marina Soley-Bori*, Julia R. Forman, Elizabeth Cecil, James Newham, Raghu Lingam, Ingrid Wolfe, Julia Fox-Rushby

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Integration of paediatric health services across primary and secondary care holds great promise for the management of chronic conditions, yet limited evidence exists on its cost-effectiveness. This paper reports the results of the economic evaluation of the Children and Young People's Health Partnership (CYPHP) aimed at integrating care for children with common chronic conditions (asthma, eczema, and constipation). Methods: Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses were conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial involving 97,970 children in 70 general practices in South London, including 1,731 participants with asthma, eczema and or constipation with self-reported health-related quality of life measures. Analyses considered the National Health Service (NHS)/Personal Social Service (PSS) and societal perspectives, and time horizons of 6 and 12-months. Costs included intervention delivery, health service use (primary and secondary care), referrals to social services, and time lost from work and school. Health outcomes were measured through the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory, the Child Health Utility 9-Dimensions, and monetarised benefit combining Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for children and parental mental well-being. Results present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), compared to a willingness to pay threshold (WTP) of £20,000–30,000/QALY, and net monetary benefit (NMB), with deterministic sensitivity analyses. Findings: At 6 months, from the NHS/PSS perspective, CYPHP is not cost-effective (ICER = £721,000/QALY), and this result holds at 12 months (ICER = £45,586/QALY). However, under the societal perspective CYPHP falls within WTP thresholds (ICER = £22,966/QALY), with a probability of being cost-effective between 0.4 and 0.6 at £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY, respectively. The cost-benefit analysis yields a positive NMB of CYPHP at 12 months £109 under the societal perspective, with similar probabilistic results. Interpretation: CYPHP was not cost-effective at 6 months or under the NHS/PSS perspective. Trends towards cost-effectiveness are observed once a longer time horizon and a more inclusive perspective on effects is considered. Further research beyond 12 months is needed as the model becomes firmly embedded into the paediatric healthcare delivery system. Funding: This research was funded by Guy's and St Thomas' Charity, Lambeth and Southwark Clinical Commissioning Groups. The funders had no role in the writing of the manuscript, decision to submit it for publication, or any other process involved in the research.

Original languageEnglish
Article number100917
Number of pages11
JournalThe Lancet Regional Health - Europe
Volume42
Early online date12 May 2024
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 12 May 2024

Cite this