About Us
Research Watch
स्क्रिनमा देखिने चुरोट: सुर्तीजन्य हानि न्यूनीकरण नीतिमा दक्षिण एसियाले अझै के छुटाइरहेको छनेपालमा पिसाब नलीको संक्रमण र एन्टिबायोटिक प्रतिरोधको बढ्दो संकटFrontline Perspectives on Nursing Leadership in NepalProtecting the Smallest Lungs from the Hidden Grip of RSV in KathmanduThe Heavy Burden of Bullying on Student Wellbeing in NepalThe Emerging Landscape of Thyroid Health in Central NepalHow a Recent Western Nepal Study is Redefining Anemia DiagnosisHow H. Pylori is Impacting the Health of Karnali’s High-Altitude CommunitiesSweet Poison, Bitter Reality: The Unseen Diabetes Epidemic Among Nepal’s YouthHow Missing Checklists and Protocols are Costing Lives in Nepal’s ERsस्क्रिनमा देखिने चुरोट: सुर्तीजन्य हानि न्यूनीकरण नीतिमा दक्षिण एसियाले अझै के छुटाइरहेको छनेपालमा पिसाब नलीको संक्रमण र एन्टिबायोटिक प्रतिरोधको बढ्दो संकटFrontline Perspectives on Nursing Leadership in NepalProtecting the Smallest Lungs from the Hidden Grip of RSV in KathmanduThe Heavy Burden of Bullying on Student Wellbeing in NepalThe Emerging Landscape of Thyroid Health in Central NepalHow a Recent Western Nepal Study is Redefining Anemia DiagnosisHow H. Pylori is Impacting the Health of Karnali’s High-Altitude CommunitiesSweet Poison, Bitter Reality: The Unseen Diabetes Epidemic Among Nepal’s YouthHow Missing Checklists and Protocols are Costing Lives in Nepal’s ERs

A 12-Month Trial-Based Economic Evaluation Comparing Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) and Circle of Security Parenting Program (COSP) Versus Treatment as Usual for Families With Young Children (2-6 Years).

Researchers

Jean Eric Tarride, Gord Blackhouse, Natalie Harvey-Younis, Amber D Rieder, G J Melendez-Torres, Divya Joshi, Jazzmin Demy, Harriet MacMillan, Charlene Attard, Susan M Jack, Leslie Atkinson, Melissa Kimber, Teresa Bennett, Andrea Gonzalez

Abstract

A 12-month trial economic evaluation was conducted to compare the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) versus treatment as usual (TAU) and the Circle of Security Parenting Program (COSP) versus TAU from a societal perspective. Trial data were used to determine the costs of delivering the interventions and the 12-month costs associated with children's health and social care service use based on the Child and Adolescent Service Use Schedule questionnaire, which was completed by caregivers of children aged 2-6. All costs were expressed in 2024 Canadian dollars. To calculate quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), caregivers documented their children's quality of life using the Health Status Classification System Preschool Version (HSCSPV) and the Health Utility Index 3 for children less or more than 5 years of age, respectively. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to represent the uncertainty. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted (e.g., change in Triple P intervention costs). The trial recruited 502 caregivers (93% female, mean age [standard deviation] of 36 years [6.7]) of 502 children (41% female, mean age of 3.8 years [SD = 1.4]). The differences in 12-month societal costs and QALYs between Triple P and TAU were $121 (95% Confidence interval [CI]: -$258, $486) and 0.009 (95% CI: -0.018, 0.039), respectively. The differences in 12-month societal costs and QALYs between COSP and TAU were -$253 (95% CI: -$552, $40) and 0.004 (95% CI: -0.026, 0.035), respectively. Assuming that society was willing to spend up to $100,000 for each additional QALY gained, the probabilities that Triple P and COSP were cost-effective compared to TAU were 0.71 and 0.68, respectively. The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main analyses. The trial results suggest that compared to TAU, Triple P and COSP represent efficient use of public resources.
Source: PubMed (PMID: 42633699)View Original on PubMed