Intensive home-treatment (IHT) for people experiencing a mental health crisis has been progressively established in many European countries as an alternative to in-ward treatment. However, the management of acute episodes at home can cause burden in the caregivers of these patients.

To create a brief group intervention (BGI) to reduce burden in the caregivers of the patients admitted to an IHT unit.

A preliminary version of the BGI (BGI 1.0) was designed based on literature’s review. It consisted of 4 sessions of 90 minutes (one per week), on-line (COVID-19), focused on caregivers burden, stress and self-care, communication skills, and self-compassion. All the caregivers of the patients admitted for IHT from 10/01/2020 to 06/01/2021 were offered the BGI 1.0. At the end of the intervention, participants (caregivers and therapists) were asked about their opinion on its contents and usefulness.

A total of 31 caregivers received the BGI 1.0. Most of them felt satisfied with the intervention. Opinions varied as to which contents should be expanded or included. The therapists thought that the number of sessions should be increased to take a closer look at some contents or to include new ones. They also believed that the on-line format hindered the adherence and the interaction between the participants.

The BGI 1.0 seems to be a good starting point to design the final version of the intervention. However, an exhaustive assessment of the construct of burden in a larger sample of caregivers should be performed prior to its design.

No significant relationships.

The implementation of Intensive Home Treatment (IHT) aims to decrease the pressure on acute inpatient services that could lead to prevent hospitalization and reduce the number of hospitalization days and, ultimately, reduce cost in the mental health services. Although there are studies assessing the effectiveness of IHT, there is a shortage of research studying the cost-effectiveness.

The aim of this study is to present an cost-utility analysis of IHT compared to care as usual (CAU)

Patients between 18 and 65 years of age whose mental health professionals considered hospitalization were included. These patients were pre-randomized in either IHT or CAU and followed up for 12-months. For this study, the base case analysis was performed from the societal and healthcare perspective. For the cost-utility analyses the Euroqol 5D was used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as a generic measure of health gains.

Data of 198 patients were used. From a sociatal perspective, the cost-utility analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €58 730, and a 37% likelihood that IHT leads to higher QALYs at lower costs. The probability of IHT being cost-effective was >50% if there was no willingness to pay more for extra QALY than in the current situation under CAU.

Professionals working in crisis care are able to offer IHT with the same effect as other crisis care interventions at lower costs. IHT seem to be cost-effective compared with CAU over 52 weeks follow-up for patients who experience psychiatric crises.

No significant relationships.