The cost-effectiveness of supported employment for adults with autism in the United Kingdom.
Bottom Line: Supported employment resulted in better outcomes compared with standard care, at an extra cost of £18 per additional week in employment or £5600 per quality-adjusted life year.In secondary analyses that incorporated potential cost-savings, supported employment dominated standard care (i.e. it produced better outcomes at a lower total cost).Further research needs to confirm these findings.
Affiliation: University College London, UK firstname.lastname@example.org.Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus
License 1 - License 2 - License 3
Mentions: Figures 2 and 3 depict the cost-effectiveness plane showing the incremental costs and incremental benefits (weeks in employment and QALYs, respectively) of supported employment versus standard care resulting from 1000 iterations of the model. Figures 4 and 5 provide the CEACs showing the probability of supported employment being cost-effective compared with standard care (Y-axis) at different levels of willingness to pay per extra unit of benefit (weeks in employment and QALYs, respectively; X-axis). According to the CEACs, the probability of supported employment being cost-effective exceeds 50% when the willingness to pay for an extra week in employment equals £21, and reaches 80% at a willingness to pay equal to £110 per extra week in employment. The probability of supported employment being cost-effective using the NICE lower cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/QALY is 67.1%, while at the NICE upper cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000/QALY, it is 75.2%.
Affiliation: University College London, UK email@example.com.