Group Versus Standard Behavioral Couples' Therapy for Alcohol Use Disorder Patients: Cost-Effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of two treatments for 101 alcohol use disorder patients and their intimate partners--group behavioral couples' therapy plus individual-based treatment (G-BCT), or standard behavioral couples' therapy plus individual-based treatment (S-BCT). METHOD: We estimated the per-patient cost of each intervention using a microcosting approach that allowed us to estimate costs of specific components in each intervention as well as the overall total costs. Using simple means analysis and multiple regression models, we estimated the incremental effectiveness of G-BCT relative to S-BCT. Immediately after treatment and 12 months after treatment, we computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for percentage days abstinent, adverse consequences of alcohol and drugs, and overall relationship functioning. RESULTS: The average per-patient cost of delivering G-BCT was $674, significantly less than the cost of S-BCT ($831). However, 12 months after treatment, S-BCT participants performed better on all outcomes compared with those in G-BCT, and the calculated ICER moving from G-BCT to S-BCT ranged from $10 to $12 across these outcomes. The current findings indicated that, except at very low willingness-to-pay values, S-BCT is a cost-effective option relative to G-BCT when considering 12-month posttreatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, G-BCT was delivered at a lower cost per patient than S-BCT; however, S-BCT performed better over time on the clinical outcomes studied. These economic findings indicate that alcohol use disorder treatment providers should seriously consider S-BCT over G-BCT when deciding what format to use in behavioral couples' therapy.

A Comparison of Low-Income Versus Higher-Income Individuals Seeking an Online Relationship Intervention.

Compared to higher-income couples, low-income couples experience higher rates of relationship disruption, including divorce and breakup of cohabiting relationships. In recognition of this disparity in relationship outcomes, relationship interventions have increasingly been targeted at this population. However, these interventions have had limited impacts on the relationships of low-income couples. Developing interventions that are effective and responsive to the needs of low-income couples requires descriptive data on the challenges those couples perceive in their own relationships and an assessment of how their needs compare to the more affluent couples typically served by relationship interventions. The current study sampled over 5,000 individuals at the time they were seeking an online relationship intervention and compared the relationship functioning and life circumstances reported by low-income individuals to that of higher-income individuals. Results indicate that low-income individuals seeking a relationship intervention had higher levels of relationship distress (lower relationship satisfaction, more intense primary relationship problems, and less relationship stability), and had greater levels of contextual stress (more children living at home, less likely to be employed full-time, and lower levels of perceived health). Results suggest that future interventions designed to target low-income couples, as well as practitioners working with low-income couples, should be prepared to handle higher levels of relationship distress and contextual stressors than they may typically see in more affluent couples.

En comparación con las parejas de recursos más altos, las parejas de bajos recursos tienen índices altos de dificultades en las relaciones, incluidos el divorcio y la ruptura de las relaciones de convivencia. En reconocimiento de esta disparidad en las consecuencias de las relaciones, se han destinado cada vez más a esta población intervenciones en las relaciones. Sin embargo, estas intervenciones han tenido efectos limitados en las relaciones de las parejas de bajos recursos. El desarrollo de intervenciones que sean eficaces y sensibles a las necesidades de las parejas de bajos recursos exige datos descriptivos sobre las dificultades que esas parejas perciben en sus propias relaciones y una evaluación de cómo sus necesidades se comparan con las de las parejas más pudientes que normalmente reciben intervenciones en las relaciones. El presente estudio tomó muestras de más de 5000 personas en el momento en que estaban buscando una intervención en las relaciones por internet y comparó el funcionamiento de las relaciones y las circunstancias de vida informadas por personas de bajos recursos con las de personas de recursos más altos. Los resultados indican que las personas de bajos recursos que buscaban una intervención en las relaciones tenían niveles más altos de distrés relacional (una menor satisfacción con las relaciones, problemas más intensos en las relaciones principales y menos estabilidad relacional) y tenían niveles más altos de estrés contextual (más niños viviendo en la casa, menos probabilidades de estar empleados tiempo completo y niveles más bajos de salud percibida). Los resultados sugieren que las futuras intervenciones diseñadas para las parejas de bajos recursos, así como los profesionales que trabajan con estas parejas deberían estar preparados para manejar niveles más altos de distrés relacional y factores de estrés contextual que los que pueden ver normalmente en las parejas más pudientes.

Relative Cost Effectiveness of In-Person and Internet Interventions for Relationship Distress.

While the efficacy of couple therapy has been repeatedly demonstrated, most distressed couples do not seek treatment. To improve reach and overcome barriers to therapy, Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT) was translated into a web-based program, OurRelationship (OR). While both IBCT and OR have been shown to improve relationship and individual functioning, the goal of the present study was to compare the relative cost effectiveness of these two treatment modalities. In IBCT, 74% of couples experienced reliable improvement, compared to 55% of couples in OR. Within-group Cohen's d effect sizes during treatment for relationship satisfaction were d = 0.87 for IBCT and d = 0.96 for OR. Relative cost effectiveness analyses revealed that even at the highest expense estimates for OR and the lowest expense estimates for IBCT, OR was more cost effective in creating reliable improvement once at least 229 couples were served and was more cost effective in creating large-size effects once at least 153 couples were served. Cost-effectiveness increases for both IBCT and OR as more couples are served; however, this cost savings occurs at a much more rapid rate for OR. These findings demonstrate that despite higher initial development costs, Internet programs are a cost-effective option for dissemination either as a stand-alone service or as an initial intervention in a stepped care model with more intensive in-person services.

Si bien la eficacia de la terapia de pareja se ha demostrado repetidamente, la mayoría de las parejas con distrés no recurren a un tratamiento. Para mejorar el alcance y superar los obstáculos para la terapia, la terapia conductual integradora de pareja (IBCT) se tradujo en un programa basado en la web, denominado en inglés: OurRelationship, OR ("Nuestra relación"). Si bien tanto la IBCT (Christensen, Atkins, Berns, Wheeler, Baucom, & Simpson, 2004) como el programa OR (Doss et al., 2016) han demostrado mejorar la relación y el funcionamiento individual, el objetivo del presente estudio fue comparar la conveniencia económica relativa de estas dos modalidades de tratamiento. En la IBCT, el 74 % de las parejas experimentaron una mejora fiable en comparación con el 55 % de las parejas del programa OR. Los tamaños del efecto de la d de Cohen dentro del grupo durante el tratamiento para la satisfacción con la relación fueron d = 0.87 para la IBCT y d = 0.96 para el programa OR. Los análisis de conveniencia económica relativa revelaron que incluso teniendo en cuenta los cálculos de mayor gasto del OR y los de menor gasto de la IBCT, el OR fue más económico a la hora de crear una mejora fiable una vez que se atendió al menos a 229 parejas y fue más económico a la hora de crear grandes tamaños del efecto una vez que se atendió a, por lo menos, 153 parejas. La conveniencia económica aumenta tanto para la IBCT como para el OR a medida que se atiende a más parejas; sin embargo, estos ahorros en los costos se producen a un ritmo mucho más rápido para el OR. A pesar de tener costos iniciales de desarrollo más altos, los programas de internet son una opción económica para su difusión como servicio independiente o como una intervención inicial en un modelo de atención escalonado con más servicios intensivos en persona.

The Case for Insurance Reimbursement of Couple Therapy.

A case is made for why it may now be in the best interest of insurance companies to reimburse for marital therapy to treat marital distress. Relevant literature is reviewed with a considerable focus on the reasons that insurance companies would benefit from reimbursing marital therapy - the high costs of marital distress, the growing link between marital distress and a host of related physical and mental health problems, as well as the availability of empirically supported treatments for marital distress. This is followed by a focus on the major reasons insurance companies cite for not reimbursing marital therapy, along with a discussion of advances in several growing bodies of research to address these concerns. Main arguments include the direct medical offset costs of couple and family therapy (including for high utilizers of health insurance), and the fact that insurance companies already find it cost effective to reimburse for prevention of other health and psychological problems. This is followed by implications for practitioners and researchers.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis to reduce HIV-1 and HSV-2 incidence in HIV-serodiscordant couples in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of daily oral tenofovir-based PrEP, with a protective effect against HSV-2 as well as HIV-1, among HIV-1 serodiscordant couples in South Africa. METHODS: We incorporated HSV-2 acquisition, transmission, and interaction with HIV-1 into a microsimulation model of heterosexual HIV-1 serodiscordant couples in South Africa, with use of PrEP for the HIV-1 uninfected partner prior to ART initiation for the HIV-1 1infected partner, and for one year thereafter. RESULTS: We estimate the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted for two scenarios, one in which PrEP has no effect on reducing HSV-2 acquisition, and one in which there is a 33% reduction. After a twenty-year intervention, the cost per DALY averted is estimated to be $10,383 and $9,757, respectively--a 6% reduction, given the additional benefit of reduced HSV-2 acquisition. If all couples are discordant for both HIV-1 and HSV-2, the cost per DALY averted falls to $1,445, which shows that the impact is limited by HSV-2 concordance in couples. CONCLUSION: After a 20-year PrEP intervention, the cost per DALY averted with a reduction in HSV-2 is estimated to be modestly lower than without any effect, providing an increase of health benefits in addition to HIV-1 prevention at no extra cost. The small degree of the effect is in part due to a high prevalence of HSV-2 infection in HIV-1 serodiscordant couples in South Africa.

Exploring the feasibility and acceptability of couple-based psychosexual support following prostate cancer surgery: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Men who undergo surgery for prostate cancer frequently experience significant side-effects including urinary and sexual dysfunction. These difficulties can lead to anxiety, depression and reduced quality of life. Many partners also experience psychological distress. An additional impact can be on the couple relationship, with changes to intimacy, and unmet psychosexual supportive needs in relation to sexual recovery and rehabilitation. The aim of this exploratory randomised controlled trial pilot study is to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a novel family-relational-psychosexual intervention to support intimacy and reduce distress among couples following prostate cancer surgery and to estimate the efficacy of this intervention. METHODS/DESIGN: The intervention will comprise six sessions of psychosexual and relationship support delivered by experienced couple-support practitioners. Specialist training in delivering the intervention will be provided to practitioners and they will be guided by a detailed treatment manual based on systemic principles. Sixty-eight couples will be randomised to receive either the intervention or standard care (comprising usual follow-up hospital appointments). A pre-test, post-test design will be used to test the feasibility of the intervention (baseline, end of intervention and six-month follow-up) and its acceptability to couples and healthcare professionals (qualitative interviews). Both individual and relational outcome measures will assess sexual functioning, anxiety and depression, couple relationship, use of health services and erectile dysfunction medication/technologies. An economic analysis will estimate population costs of the intervention, compared to usual care, using simple modelling to evaluate the affordability of the intervention. DISCUSSION: Given the increasing incidence and survival of post-operative men with prostate cancer, it is timely and appropriate to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial through a pilot randomised controlled trial of a family-relational-psychosexual intervention for couples. The study will provide evidence about the components of a couple-based intervention, its acceptability to patients and healthcare professionals, and its influence on sexual and relational functioning. Data from this study will be used to calculate sample sizes required for any definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01842438.Registration date: 24 April 2013; Randomisation of first patient: 13 May 2013.

Brief relationship therapy for alcoholism: a randomized clinical trial examining clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of brief relationship therapy (BRT), a shortened version of standard behavioral couples therapy (S-BCT), with alcoholic male patients (N = 100) and their nonsubstance-abusing female partners. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment conditions: (a) BRT, (b) S-BCT, (c) individual-based treatment (IBT), or (d) psychoeducational attention control treatment (PACT). Equivalency testing revealed that, compared with those assigned to S-BCT, participants who were randomly assigned to BRT had equivalent posttreatment and 12-month follow-up heavy drinking outcomes. Moreover, at 12-month follow-up, heavy drinking and dyadic adjustment outcomes for patients who received BRT were superior to those of patients who received IBT or PACT. BRT was significantly more cost effective than the S-BCT, IBT, or PACT.