{Reference Type}: Controlled Clinical Trial {Title}: A cost-effectiveness analysis of a universal, preventative-focused, parent and infant programme. {Author}: Crealey GE;Hickey G;McGilloway S; {Journal}: BMC Health Serv Res {Volume}: 24 {Issue}: 1 {Year}: 2024 Feb 8 {Factor}: 2.908 {DOI}: 10.1186/s12913-023-10492-w {Abstract}: BACKGROUND: This study assessed whether a relatively newly developed Parent and Infant (PIN) parenting support programme was cost-effective when compared to services as usual (SAU).
METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of the PIN programme versus SAU was assessed from an Irish health and social care perspective over a 24-month timeframe and within the context of a non-randomised, controlled before-and-after trial. In total, 163 parent-infant dyads were included in the study (86 intervention, 77 control). The primary outcome measure for the economic evaluation was the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC).
RESULTS: The average cost of the PIN programme was €647 per dyad. The mean (SE) cost (including programme costs) was €7,027 (SE €1,345) compared to €4,811 (SE €593) in the control arm, generating a (non-significant) mean cost difference of €2,216 (bootstrap 95% CI -€665 to €5,096; p = 0.14). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of the PIN service was €614 per PSOC unit gained (bootstrap 95% CI €54 to €1,481). The probability that the PIN programme was cost-effective, was 87% at a willingness-to-pay of €1,000 per one unit change in the PSOC.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the PIN programme was cost-effective at a relatively low willingness-to-pay threshold when compared to SAU. This study addresses a significant knowledge gap in the field of early intervention by providing important real world evidence on the implementation costs and cost-effectiveness of a universal early years parenting programme. The challenges involved in assessing the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for very young children and their parents are also discussed.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN17488830 (Date of registration: 27/11/15). This trial was retrospectively registered.