# Cost-effectiveness of targeted feedback interventions after depression screening in primary care: health economic evaluation of the GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial

## TL;DR

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of feedback interventions after depression screening in primary care and found they were not generally cost-effective.

## Contribution

The study provides new health economic insights into feedback interventions following depression screening in primary care settings.

## Key findings

- Feedback interventions were not significantly associated with changes in costs or quality-adjusted life years.
- Cost-effectiveness probabilities of feedback interventions were lower than 50% compared with no feedback.
- Higher cost-effectiveness probabilities were observed in patients with confirmed depression and previous depression history.

## Abstract

Depression screening in primary care has been widely discussed, but its economic implications have remained largely unexplored. The GET.FEEDBACK.GP randomised controlled trial evaluated feedback interventions after depression screening in primary care. The study arms were (a) feedback provided to the general practitioner; (b) feedback to both the patient and the treating general practitioner; and (c) a control group without feedback. Analysis of clinical effectiveness revealed that feedback interventions were not associated with decreased depression severity. Their economic implications were the subject of this study.

To evaluate the economic impact of general-practitioner- and patient-targeted feedback following depression screening for adults in German primary care.

A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective of feedback interventions after depression screening with a time horizon of 12 months was conducted. Direct and indirect costs were estimated. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated on the basis of the EQ-5D-5L, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the net monetary benefit were constructed. Sensitivity analyses and post hoc explorative subpopulation analyses were performed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03988985.

In total, 987 participants who screened positive for at least moderate depression were included. Feedback provision was not significantly associated with changes in costs or quality-adjusted life years during follow-up. Cost-effectiveness probabilities of feedback interventions were lower than 50% compared with no feedback. Higher cost-effectiveness probabilities were observed in patients whose suspected depression was confirmed 1 month post-screening and in those with previous depression.

The analysed feedback interventions cannot be considered to be cost-effective for the investigated population. Patient-targeted feedback was potentially cost-effective for subpopulations, particularly patients with a later confirmed depression diagnosis; this requires further research.