##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57187/4899

Original article

Vol. 156 No. 6 (2026)

Cost-effectiveness of home treatment compared to inpatient care in child and adolescent psychiatry: evidence from a pilot trial

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2026;156:4899
Published
29.06.2026

Summary

STUDY AIMS: Mental disorders in children and adolescents have increased substantially, placing growing pressure on healthcare systems. Home treatment has emerged as an alternative to conventional inpatient treatment as usual (I-TAU), potentially offering clinical and cost benefits. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive home treatment programme (AT_HOME) compared to I-TAU in Switzerland.

METHODS: Data were collected within a monocentric pilot trial involving 75 children and adolescents (aged 6–17 years) admitted for acute psychiatric care between May 2019 and July 2020. Participants were allocated to AT_HOME if they met geographical and safety criteria and consented to receive home treatment (n = 27); all remaining patients received I-TAU (n = 48). Clinical effectiveness was assessed as between-group differences in change in psychosocial functioning from admission to follow-up at 18–24 months, assessed with the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. The primary outcome of this secondary analysis was the cost-effectiveness of home treatment compared with I-TAU. Cost estimates included direct medical costs for the initial treatment period and follow-up healthcare utilisation from a comprehensive multi-payer healthcare system perspective. Cost-effectiveness was analysed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC). Secondary outcomes included the costs of the index treatment, costs of follow-up mental healthcare utilisation and total costs.

RESULTS: The point estimate of the incremental cost of home treatment compared to I-TAU was CHF -48,591 (95% CI: -108,493 to 11,312; SE: 30,563) and the incremental effect was 9.41 (95% CI: 0.52 to 18.31; SE: 4.54) on the GAF scale. The resulting ICER was -5161 per 1-point improvement in the GAF score (95% CI: - 49,482 to 39,161; SE: 22,613) and the CEAC suggested a high probability (94.6%) that home treatment was cost-effective compared with I-TAU across willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, home treatment for children and adolescents with severe psychiatric disorders was associated with favourable cost-effectiveness estimates compared with I-TAU. These findings suggest that intensive home-based treatment models may have the potential to contribute to more efficient use of mental health resources.

Clinical trial registration number: DRKS00025424 (German Clinical Trials Register, registered on 27 May 2021).

References

  1. 1.Polanczyk GV, Salum GA, Sugaya LS, Caye A, Rohde LA. Annual research review: A meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;56(3):345–65. 10.1111/jcpp.12381
  2. 2.Kieling C, Buchweitz C, Caye A, Silvani J, Ameis SH, Brunoni AR, et al. Worldwide Prevalence and Disability From Mental Disorders Across Childhood and Adolescence: Evidence From the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Psychiatry. 2024 Apr;81(4):347–56. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.5051
  3. 3.Thom J, Jonas B, Reitzle L, Mauz E, Hölling H, Schulz M. Trends in the Diagnostic Prevalence of Mental Disorders, 2012-2022—Using Nationwide Outpatient Claims Data for Mental Health Surveillance. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2024 May;121(11):355–62. 10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0052
  4. 4.Racine N, McArthur BA, Cooke JE, Eirich R, Zhu J, Madigan S. Global Prevalence of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Children and Adolescents During COVID-19: A Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Nov;175(11):1142–50. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2482
  5. 5.Madigan S, Racine N, Vaillancourt T, Korczak DJ, Hewitt JM, Pador P, et al. Changes in Depression and Anxiety Among Children and Adolescents From Before to During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2023 Jun;177(6):567–81. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.0846
  6. 6.Wiens K, Bhattarai A, Pedram P, Dores A, Williams J, Bulloch A, et al. A growing need for youth mental health services in Canada: examining trends in youth mental health from 2011 to 2018. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2020 Apr;29:e115. 10.1017/S2045796020000281
  7. 7.Federal Statistical Office. (Bundesamt für Statistik, BfS). Behandlung von psychischen Störungen bei jungen Menschen, 2020 und 2021. Neuchâtel; 2023 retrieved 2023 Feb 14. Available from: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/aktuell/neue-veroeffentlichungen.html
  8. 8.Knapp M, Wong G. Economics and mental health: the current scenario. World Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;19(1):3–14. 10.1002/wps.20692
  9. 9.Schuler D, Tuch A, Sturny I, Peter C. Psychische Gesundheit. Kennzahlen 2021. Neuchâtel: Schweizerisches Gesundheitsobservatorium; 2023 retrieved 2025 Mar 7. Available from: https://www.obsan.admin.ch/de/publikationen/2023-psychische-gesundheit
  10. 10.Mohajer-Bastami A, Moin S, Sweetman B, Ahmed AR, Head M, Gelber E, et al. A comparison of the United Kingdom’s and Switzerland’s healthcare financing systems for achieving equity and efficiency goals. Swiss Med Wkly. 2025 Mar;155(3):4101. 10.57187/s.4101
  11. 11.Federal Office of Public Health. (Bundesamt für Gesundheit, BAG) (BAG). Runder Tisch Kostendämpfung: Massnahmenpapier. Bern; 2025 retrieved 2025 Nov 5. Available from: https://www.bag.admin.ch/de/runder-tisch-kostendaempfung
  12. 12.McGorry PD, Mei C, Dalal N, Alvarez-Jimenez M, Blakemore SJ, Browne V, et al. The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health. Lancet Psychiatry. 2024 Sep;11(9):731–74. 10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00163-9
  13. 13.Schmidt MH, Lay B, Göpel C, Naab S, Blanz B. Home treatment for children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;15(5):265–76. 10.1007/s00787-006-0531-x
  14. 14.Woolston JL, Berkowitz SJ, Schaefer MC, Adnopoz JA. Intensive, integrated, in-home psychiatric services. The catalyst to enhancing outpatient intervention. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 1998 Jul;7(3):615–33. 10.1016/S1056-4993(18)30232-3
  15. 15. Wasik BH, Bryant DM. Home visiting: Procedures for helping families. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (Calif): SAGE Publications; 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452225616
  16. 16.Graf D, Sigrist C, Boege I, Cavelti M, Koenig J, Kaess M. Effectiveness of home treatment in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders-systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2024 Jun;22(1):241. 10.1186/s12916-024-03448-2
  17. 17.Ougrin D, Corrigall R, Poole J, Zundel T, Sarhane M, Slater V, et al. Comparison of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intensive community supported discharge service versus treatment as usual for adolescents with psychiatric emergencies: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Jun;5(6):477–85. 10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30129-9 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30129-9
  18. 18.Sheidow AJ, Bradford WD, Henggeler SW, Rowland MD, Halliday-Boykins C, Schoenwald SK, et al. Treatment costs for youths receiving multisystemic therapy or hospitalization after a psychiatric crisis. Psychiatr Serv. 2004 May;55(5):548–54. 10.1176/appi.ps.55.5.548
  19. 19.Boege I, Corpus N, Schepker R, Kilian R, Fegert JM. Cost-effectiveness of intensive home treatment enhanced by inpatient treatment elements in child and adolescent psychiatry in Germany: A randomised trial. Eur Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;30(5):583–9. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.01.009
  20. 20.Graf D, Lerch S, Böhnke U, Reichl C, Kaess M. Comparison of the long-term outcome of home vs. inpatient treatment: 18-24 months follow-up of a non-randomized controlled trial. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2025 Sep;34(9):2697–705. 10.1007/s00787-025-02677-x
  21. 21.Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. MDM Policy Pract. 2022 Jan;7(1):23814683211061097. 10.1177/23814683211061097
  22. 22.Gehrig M, Kaess MA. _HOME – Aufsuchende Therapie zu Hause, Originell, Mobil, Effektiv. Psychiatrische Pflege. 2020;5(4):21–7. 10.1024/2297-6965/a000308
  23. 23.Graf D, Lerch S, Böhnke U, Reichl C, Kindler J, Koenig J, et al. Treatment outcome of an intensive psychiatric home treatment for children and adolescents: a non-randomized controlled pilot evaluation. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023 Apr;32(4):685–95. 10.1007/s00787-021-01919-y
  24. 24.Sittimart M, Rattanavipapong W, Mirelman AJ, Hung TM, Dabak S, Downey LE, et al. An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2024 May;22(1):41. 10.1186/s12962-024-00552-1
  25. 25.De Pietro C, Camenzind P, Sturny I, Crivelli L, Edwards-Garavoglia S, Spranger A, et al. Switzerland: Health System Review [xix.]. Health Syst Transit. 2015;17(4):1–288.
  26. 26. Salize HJ, Kilian R. Gesundheitsökonomie in der Psychiatrie: Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen. Stuttgart, Deutschland: Kohlhammer Verlag; 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.17433/978-3-17-026606-3
  27. 27.Voß E, Salize HJ. Health care utilization and cost-effectiveness analyses in prevention studies in the mental health care field. Ment Health Prev. 2016;4(1):19–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2016.01.004
  28. 28.Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, BfArM). Anatomisch-therapeutisch-chemische Klassifikation mit Tagesdosen für den deutschen Arzneimittelmarkt: Amtliche Fassung des ATC-Index mit DDD-Angaben für Deutschland im Jahr 2024; 2024 retrieved 2024 Oct 16. Available from: https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Kodiersysteme/ATC/atc-ddd-amtlich-2024.html?nn=732114&cms_dlConfirm=true&cms_calledFromDoc=732114
  29. 29.Federal Office of Public Health. (Bundesamt für Gesundheit, BAG) (BAG). Spezialitätenliste; 2025 retrieved 2025 Jul 27. Available from: www.spezialitätenliste.ch.
  30. 30. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington (DC); 1994.
  31. 31.Hall RC. Global assessment of functioning. A modified scale. Psychosomatics. 1995;36(3):267–75. 10.1016/S0033-3182(95)71666-8
  32. 32.Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ. 2000 Apr;320(7243):1197–200. 10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1197
  33. 33.Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977 Mar;296(13):716–21. 10.1056/NEJM197703312961304
  34. 34.Puschner B, Kraft S. Kosteneffektivität ambulanter Psychotherapie. Psychotherapeut. 2008;53(4):268–76. 10.1007/s00278-008-0613-y
  35. 35.Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):461–75. 10.1002/hec.843
  36. 36.Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):627–36. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.014
  37. 37.Kuss O, Blettner M, Börgermann J. Propensity Score: an Alternative Method of Analyzing Treatment Effects. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016 Sep;113(35-36):597–603. 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0597
  38. 38.Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998 Dec;7(8):723–40. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199812)7:8<723:AID-HEC392>3.0.CO;2-O doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199812)7:8<723::AID-HEC392>3.0.CO;2-O
  39. 39.Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med. 2000 Dec;19(23):3219–36. 10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23<3219:AID-SIM623>3.0.CO;2-P doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23<3219::AID-SIM623>3.0.CO;2-P
  40. 40. Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;187(2):106–8. 10.1192/bjp.187.2.106
  41. 41. Kilian R. Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation in der psychiatrischen Versorgungsforschung. Pravent Gesundhford. 2008;3(3):135–44. 10.1007/s11553-008-0120-6
  42. 42.Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):415–30. 10.1002/hec.678
  43. 43.Hoch JS, Smith MW. A guide to economic evaluation: methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of person-level data. J Trauma Stress. 2006 Dec;19(6):787–97. 10.1002/jts.20190
  44. 44.Johnson TP, Wislar JS. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA. 2012 May;307(17):1805–6. 10.1001/jama.2012.3532
  45. 45.Goldberg RW, Seybolt DC, Lehman A. Reliable self-report of health service use by individuals with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2002 Jul;53(7):879–81. 10.1176/appi.ps.53.7.879
  46. 46.Calsyn RJ, Allen G, Morse GA, Smith R, Tempelhoff B. Can You Trust Self-Report Data Provided By Homeless Mentally Ill Individuals? Eval Rev. 1993;17(3):353–66. 10.1177/0193841X9301700306