Direct health care costs of treating seasonal affective disorder: A comparison of light therapy and fluoxetine

Amy Cheung, Carolyn S Dewa, Erin E. Michalak, Gina Browne, Anthony Levitt, Robert D. Levitan, Murray W. Enns, Rachel L. Morehouse, Raymond W. Lam

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To compare the direct mental health care costs between individuals with Seasonal Affective Disorder randomized to either fluoxetine or light therapy. Methods. Data from the CANSAD study was used. CANSAD was an 8-week multicentre double-blind study that randomized participants to receive either light therapy plus placebo capsules or placebo light therapy plus fluoxetine. Participants were aged 18-65 who met criteria for major depressive episodes with a seasonal (winter) pattern. Mental health care service use was collected for each subject for 4 weeks prior to the start of treatment and for 4 weeks prior to the end of treatment. All direct mental health care services costs were analysed, including inpatient and outpatient services, investigations, and medications. Results. The difference in mental health costs was significantly higher after treatment for the light therapy group compared to the medication group - a difference of $111.25 (z = - 3.77, P = 0.000). However, when the amortized cost of the light box was taken into the account, the groups were switched with the fluoxetine group incurring greater direct care costs - a difference of $75.41 (z = - 2.635, P = 0.008). Conclusion. The results suggest that individuals treated with medication had significantly less mental health care cost after-treatment compared to those treated with light therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number628434
JournalDepression Research and Treatment
Volume2012
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Seasonal Affective Disorder
Phototherapy
Fluoxetine
Health Care Costs
Mental Health
Mental Health Services
Placebos
Costs and Cost Analysis
Aftercare
Ambulatory Care
Double-Blind Method
Capsules
Inpatients
Therapeutics
Delivery of Health Care
Light

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Direct health care costs of treating seasonal affective disorder : A comparison of light therapy and fluoxetine. / Cheung, Amy; Dewa, Carolyn S; Michalak, Erin E.; Browne, Gina; Levitt, Anthony; Levitan, Robert D.; Enns, Murray W.; Morehouse, Rachel L.; Lam, Raymond W.

In: Depression Research and Treatment, Vol. 2012, 628434, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cheung, Amy ; Dewa, Carolyn S ; Michalak, Erin E. ; Browne, Gina ; Levitt, Anthony ; Levitan, Robert D. ; Enns, Murray W. ; Morehouse, Rachel L. ; Lam, Raymond W. / Direct health care costs of treating seasonal affective disorder : A comparison of light therapy and fluoxetine. In: Depression Research and Treatment. 2012 ; Vol. 2012.
@article{144781018a3d40c9aa9204c989e16a20,
title = "Direct health care costs of treating seasonal affective disorder: A comparison of light therapy and fluoxetine",
abstract = "Objective. To compare the direct mental health care costs between individuals with Seasonal Affective Disorder randomized to either fluoxetine or light therapy. Methods. Data from the CANSAD study was used. CANSAD was an 8-week multicentre double-blind study that randomized participants to receive either light therapy plus placebo capsules or placebo light therapy plus fluoxetine. Participants were aged 18-65 who met criteria for major depressive episodes with a seasonal (winter) pattern. Mental health care service use was collected for each subject for 4 weeks prior to the start of treatment and for 4 weeks prior to the end of treatment. All direct mental health care services costs were analysed, including inpatient and outpatient services, investigations, and medications. Results. The difference in mental health costs was significantly higher after treatment for the light therapy group compared to the medication group - a difference of $111.25 (z = - 3.77, P = 0.000). However, when the amortized cost of the light box was taken into the account, the groups were switched with the fluoxetine group incurring greater direct care costs - a difference of $75.41 (z = - 2.635, P = 0.008). Conclusion. The results suggest that individuals treated with medication had significantly less mental health care cost after-treatment compared to those treated with light therapy.",
author = "Amy Cheung and Dewa, {Carolyn S} and Michalak, {Erin E.} and Gina Browne and Anthony Levitt and Levitan, {Robert D.} and Enns, {Murray W.} and Morehouse, {Rachel L.} and Lam, {Raymond W.}",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1155/2012/628434",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2012",
journal = "Depression Research and Treatment",
issn = "2090-1321",
publisher = "Hindawi Publishing Corporation",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Direct health care costs of treating seasonal affective disorder

T2 - A comparison of light therapy and fluoxetine

AU - Cheung, Amy

AU - Dewa, Carolyn S

AU - Michalak, Erin E.

AU - Browne, Gina

AU - Levitt, Anthony

AU - Levitan, Robert D.

AU - Enns, Murray W.

AU - Morehouse, Rachel L.

AU - Lam, Raymond W.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Objective. To compare the direct mental health care costs between individuals with Seasonal Affective Disorder randomized to either fluoxetine or light therapy. Methods. Data from the CANSAD study was used. CANSAD was an 8-week multicentre double-blind study that randomized participants to receive either light therapy plus placebo capsules or placebo light therapy plus fluoxetine. Participants were aged 18-65 who met criteria for major depressive episodes with a seasonal (winter) pattern. Mental health care service use was collected for each subject for 4 weeks prior to the start of treatment and for 4 weeks prior to the end of treatment. All direct mental health care services costs were analysed, including inpatient and outpatient services, investigations, and medications. Results. The difference in mental health costs was significantly higher after treatment for the light therapy group compared to the medication group - a difference of $111.25 (z = - 3.77, P = 0.000). However, when the amortized cost of the light box was taken into the account, the groups were switched with the fluoxetine group incurring greater direct care costs - a difference of $75.41 (z = - 2.635, P = 0.008). Conclusion. The results suggest that individuals treated with medication had significantly less mental health care cost after-treatment compared to those treated with light therapy.

AB - Objective. To compare the direct mental health care costs between individuals with Seasonal Affective Disorder randomized to either fluoxetine or light therapy. Methods. Data from the CANSAD study was used. CANSAD was an 8-week multicentre double-blind study that randomized participants to receive either light therapy plus placebo capsules or placebo light therapy plus fluoxetine. Participants were aged 18-65 who met criteria for major depressive episodes with a seasonal (winter) pattern. Mental health care service use was collected for each subject for 4 weeks prior to the start of treatment and for 4 weeks prior to the end of treatment. All direct mental health care services costs were analysed, including inpatient and outpatient services, investigations, and medications. Results. The difference in mental health costs was significantly higher after treatment for the light therapy group compared to the medication group - a difference of $111.25 (z = - 3.77, P = 0.000). However, when the amortized cost of the light box was taken into the account, the groups were switched with the fluoxetine group incurring greater direct care costs - a difference of $75.41 (z = - 2.635, P = 0.008). Conclusion. The results suggest that individuals treated with medication had significantly less mental health care cost after-treatment compared to those treated with light therapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873859455&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873859455&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1155/2012/628434

DO - 10.1155/2012/628434

M3 - Article

C2 - 23119154

AN - SCOPUS:84873859455

VL - 2012

JO - Depression Research and Treatment

JF - Depression Research and Treatment

SN - 2090-1321

M1 - 628434

ER -