G. Grant et al., A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a referrals facilitator between primary care and the voluntary sector, BR MED J, 320(7232), 2000, pp. 419
Citations number
21
Categorie Soggetti
General & Internal Medicine","Medical Research General Topics
Objectives To compare outcome and resource utilisation among patients refer
red to the Amalthea Project, a liaison organisation that facilitates contac
t between voluntary organisations and patients in primary care, with patien
ts receiving routine general practitioner care.
Design Randomised controlled trial with follow up at one and four months.
Setting 26 general practices in Avon.
Participants 161 patients identified by their general practitioner as havin
g psychosocial problems.
Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were psychological wellbeing (assess
ed with the hospital anxiety and depression scale) and social support (asse
ssed using the Duke-UNC functional social support questionnaire). Secondary
outcomes were quality of life measures (the Dartmouth COOP/WONCA functiona
l health assessment charts and the delighted-terrible faces scale), cost of
contacts with the primary healthcare team and Amalthea Project, cost of pr
escribing in primary care, and cost of referrals to other agencies, over fo
ur months.
Results The Amalthea group showed significantly greater improvements in anx
iety (average difference between groups after adjustment for baseline -1.9,
95% confidence interval -3.0 to -0.7), other emotional feelings (average a
djusted difference -0.5, -0.8 to -0.2), ability to carry out everyday activ
ities (-0.5, -0.8 to -0.2), feelings about general health (-0.4, -0.7 to -0
.1), and quality of life (-0.5, -0.9 to -0.1). No difference was detected i
n depression or perceived social support. The mean cost was significantly g
reater in the Amalthea arm than the general practitioner care arm (pound 15
3 v pound 133, P = 0.025).
Conclusion Referral to the Amalthea Project and subsequent contact with the
voluntary sector results in clinically important benefits compared with us
ual general practitioner care in managing psychosocial problems, but at a h
igher cost.