Analytical approach:
The analysis was based on a randomised controlled trial (RCT), conducted in Lambeth, South London, with a follow-up of 18 months. The authors reported that a public sector perspective was adopted.
Effectiveness data:
The effectiveness data were from a single-centre RCT (Craig, et al. 2004, See 'Other Publications of Related Interest' below for bibliographic details). People aged 16 to 40 years, who were referred to specialist mental health services, with a probable diagnosis of non-affective psychosis, were eligible for inclusion, and were randomised, using sealed envelopes, in blocks of two to six people, to receive the early intervention (71 patients) or standard care (73 patients). The primary outcome measures were the rates of relapse and hospitalisation; secondary outcomes included quality of life and vocational recovery, defined as a return to or taking up full-time employment or education.
Monetary benefit and utility valuations:
Not relevant.
Measure of benefit:
The primary outcomes were quality of life and vocational recovery. Quality of life was estimated, using the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life survey, given to study participants.
Cost data:
The analysis included health care (primary and hospital), social care, and criminal justice services. The resource use was from participants in the RCT, and was collected for the first and third six-month periods of follow-up. Local hospital data were available for the full 18 months. Service use was measured, using an adapted version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory. The unit costs were from a published source. The cost differences were adjusted, using a bootstrapped regression model, for patient characteristics and baseline costs (during the six months prior to randomisation). The price year was 2003 to 2004.
Analysis of uncertainty:
: The analysis of uncertainty involved a net benefit approach. This consisted of varying the theoretical amount that society would be willing to pay for a one-unit improvement in quality of life or someone making a vocational recovery, to assess the likelihood of the intervention being cost-effective. Standard deviations were provided for the individual costs and benefits.
