How to assess severe burnout? Cutoff points for the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) based on three European samples.

OBJECTIVE: Despite decades of burnout research, clinical validated cut-off scores that discriminate between those who suffer from burnout and those who don't are still lacking. To establish such cut-off scores, the current study uses a newly developed questionnaire, the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) that consists of four subscales (exhaustion, mental distancing, and emotional and cognitive impairment). Separate cut-offs were computed for those at risk for burnout and those suffering from severe burnout for the original BAT-23 as well as for the shortened BAT-12. METHODS: Relative operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were carried out using representative samples of healthy employees from The Netherlands (N=1370), Belgium (Flanders; N=1403) and Finland (N=1350). In addition, samples of employees who received a burnout diagnosis were used (N=335, 158 and 50, respectively). RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of the BAT (area under the curve) ranges from good to excellent with the exception of mental distancing, which is fair. The country-specific cut-off values as well as their specificity and sensitivity are comparable to those of the pooled sample. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to country-specific cut-offs, general cut-offs can be used tentatively in other similar countries, pending future replication studies. Caution is warranted for using cut-offs for mental distance as the sensitivity and specificity of this subscale is relatively poor. It is concluded that the BAT can be used in organizational surveys for identifying employees at risk for burnout and, in clinical treatment settings, for identifying those with severe burnout, keeping in mind the tentativeness of the present cut-offs.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted web-based intervention for depression and anxiety in patients with ischemic heart disease attending cardiac rehabilitation [eMindYourHeart trial]: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: One in five patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) develop comorbid depression or anxiety. Depression is associated with risk of non-adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and dropout, inadequate risk factor management, poor quality of life (QoL), increased healthcare costs and premature death. In 2020, IHD and depression are expected to be among the top contributors to the disease-burden worldwide. Hence, it is paramount to treat both the underlying somatic disease as well as depression and anxiety. eMindYourHeart will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention targeting depression and anxiety in patients with IHD, which may help fill this gap in clinical care. METHODS: eMindYourHeart is a multi-center, two-armed, unblinded randomised controlled trial that will compare a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention to treatment as usual in 188 CR patients with IHD and comorbid depression or anxiety. The primary outcome of the trial is symptoms of depression, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months include symptoms of depression and anxiety (HADS), perceived stress, health complaints, QoL (HeartQoL), trial dropout (number of patients dropped out in either arm at 3 months) and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first trial to evaluate both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention in patients with IHD and comorbid psychological distress as part of CR. Integrating screening for and treatment of depression and anxiety into standard CR may decrease dropout and facilitate better risk factor management, as it is presented as "one package" to patients, and they can access the eMindYourHeart program in their own time and at their own convenience. The trial holds a strong potential for improving the quality of care for an increasing population of patients with IHD and comorbid depression, anxiety or both, with likely benefits to patients, families, and society at large due to potential reductions in direct and indirect costs, if proven successful. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04172974 on November 21, 2019 with registration number [NCT04172974].

Economic evaluation of Internet-based problem-solving guided self-help treatment in comparison with enhanced usual care for depressed outpatients waiting for face-to-face treatment: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions for depression in comparison with usual care. However, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions when delivered in outpatient clinics is lacking. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of an Internet-based problem-solving guided self-help intervention in comparison with enhanced usual care for outpatients on a waiting list for face-to-face treatment for major depression. After the waiting list period, participants from both groups received the same treatment at outpatient clinics. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial with 12 months follow-up. Outcomes were improvement in depressive symptom severity (measured by CES-D), response to treatment and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs). Statistical uncertainty around cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Mean societal costs for the intervention group were €1579 higher than in usual care, but this was not statistically significant (95% CI - 1395 to 4382). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the maximum probability of the intervention being cost-effective in comparison with usual care was 0.57 at a ceiling ratio of €15,000/additional point of improvement in CES-D, and 0.25 and 0.30 for an additional response to treatment and an extra QALY respectively, at a ceiling ratio of €30,000. Sensitivity analysis showed that from a mental healthcare provider perspective the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.68 for a ceiling ratio of 0 €/additional unit of effect for the CES-D score, response to treatment and QALYs. As the ceiling ratio increased this probability decreased, because the mean costs in the intervention group were lower than the mean costs in the usual care group. LIMITATIONS: The patients in the intervention group showed low adherence to the Internet-based treatment. It is possible that greater adherence would have led to larger clinical effects. CONCLUSIONS: Offering an Internet-based intervention to depressed outpatients on waiting list for face-to-face treatment was not considered cost-effective in comparison with enhanced usual care from a societal perspective. There was a high probability of the intervention being cost-effective in comparison with enhanced usual care from the perspective of the mental healthcare provider.

Cost-effectiveness of blended vs. face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy for severe anxiety disorders: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent psychiatric conditions, and are associated with poor quality of life and substantial economic burden. Cognitive behavioural therapy is an effective treatment to reduce anxiety symptoms, but is also costly and labour intensive. Cost-effectiveness could possibly be improved by delivering cognitive behavioural therapy in a blended format, where face-to-face sessions are partially replaced by online sessions. The aim of this trial is to determine the cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with anxiety disorders, i.e. panic disorder, social phobia or generalized anxiety disorder, in specialized mental health care settings compared to face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy. In this paper, we present the study protocol. It is hypothesized that blended cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders is clinically as effective as face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy, but that intervention costs may be reduced. We thus hypothesize that blended cognitive behavioural therapy is more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: In a randomised controlled equivalence trial 156 patients will be included (n = 78 in blended cognitive behavioural therapy, n = 78 in face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy) based on a power of 0.80, calculated by using a formula to estimate the power of a cost-effectiveness analysis: [Formula: see text]. Measurements will take place at baseline, midway treatment (7 weeks), immediately after treatment (15 weeks) and 12-month follow-up. At baseline a diagnostic interview will be administered. Primary clinical outcomes are changes in anxiety symptom severity as measured with the Beck Anxiety Inventory. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated to obtain the costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D (5-level version). Health-economic outcomes will be explored from a societal and health care perspective. DISCUSSION: This trial will be one of the first to provide information on the cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in routine specialized mental health care settings, both from a societal and a health care perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4912. Registered 13 November 2014.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of web-based treatment for phobic outpatients on a waiting list for psychotherapy: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Phobic disorders are highly prevalent and constitute a considerable burden for patients and society. As patients wait for face-to-face psychotherapy for phobic disorders in outpatient clinics, this time can be used for guided self-help interventions. The aim of this study is to investigate a five week internet-based guided self-help programme of exposure therapy in terms of clinical effectiveness and impact on speed of recovery in psychiatric outpatients, as well as the cost-effectiveness of this pre-treatment waiting list intervention. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial will be conducted among 244 Dutch adult patients recruited from waiting lists of outpatient clinics for face-to-face psychotherapy for phobic disorders. Patients suffering from at least one DSM-IV classified phobic disorder (social phobia, agoraphobia or specific phobia) are randomly allocated (at a 1:1 ratio) to either a five-week internet-based guided self-help program followed by face-to-face psychotherapy, or a control group followed by face-to-face psychotherapy. Waiting list status and duration are unchanged and actual need for further treatment is evaluated prior to face-to-face psychotherapy. Clinical and economic self-assessment measurements take place at baseline, post-test (five weeks after baseline) and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after baseline. DISCUSSION: Offering pre-treatment internet-based guided self-help efficiently uses time otherwise lost on a waiting list and may increase patient satisfaction. Patients are expected to need fewer face-to-face sessions, reducing total treatment cost and increasing speed of recovery. Internet-delivered treatment for phobias may be a valuable addition to psychotherapy as demand for outpatient treatment increases while budgets decrease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2233.