{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03076923076923077, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016666666666666666, 'mean_word_length': 5.816593886462882, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cost-effectiveness of a primary care depression intervention

AbstractOBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement depression intervention (enhanced care) in primary care settings relative to usual care.
 DESIGN: Following stratification, we randomized 12 primary care practices to enhanced or usual care conditions and followed patients for 12 months.
 SETTING: Primary care practices located in 10 states across the United States.
 PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred eleven patients beginning a new treatment episode for major depression.
 INTERVENTIONS: Training the primary care team to assess, educate, and monitor depressed patients during the acute and continuation stages of their depression treatment episode over 1 year.
 MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness was measured by calculating incremental (enhanced minus usual care) costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from SF-36 data. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the main analysis was $15,463 per QALY. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the sensitivity analyses ranged from $11,341 (using geographic block variables to control for pre-intervention service utilization) to $19,976 (increasing the cost estimates by 50%) per QALY.
 CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement depression intervention was cost-effective relative to usual care compared to cost-effectiveness ratios for common primary care interventions and commonly cited cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds for intervention implementation.