Sensitivity to change in well-being and health-related quality of life in adults with eating disorder symptoms: ICECAP-A versus EQ-5D-5L.

OBJECTIVE: Economic evaluations of treatments help to inform decisions on allocating health care resources. These evaluations involve comparing costs and effectiveness in terms of quality of life. To calculate quality-adjusted life years, generic health related quality of life is often used, but is criticized for not being sensitive to change in mental health populations. Another approach, using experienced well-being measured through capabilities with the ICECAP-A, has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this study was to investigate whether changes in individuals with eating disorder (ED) symptoms can be better captured using health related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) or well-being (ICECAP-A). METHOD: Measurements at two time points with an interval of 1 year were used from a sample of 233 participants with self-reported ED symptoms. An analysis of variance was used to test whether the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A differed in sensitivity to change over time. In order to compare the two questionnaires in terms of clinically significant outcome, the reliable change index and clinical cut-off score were calculated. RESULTS: The two questionnaires did not differ in sensitivity to change. More individuals had recovered but also more had deteriorated according to the EQ-5D-5L compared to the ICECAP. DISCUSSION: The present study revealed no differences in sensitivity to change in health-related quality of life or well-being in individuals with ED symptoms in the context of mild clinical change. Results corroborated the pervasiveness of low quality of life in this population, even after alleviation of ED symptoms. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Measuring treatment benefits in terms of improvements in quality of life is an integral part of economic evaluations in health care. It was expected that these treatment benefits would be better captured as changes in well-being (measured with the ICECAP-A) than as changes in health-related quality of life (measured with the EQ-5D-5L) for individuals with ED symptoms. Based on the results of this study, no preference for one of the two approaches was found.

Cost-effectiveness of Internet Interventions Compared With Treatment as Usual for People With Mental Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The economic costs of mental disorders for society are huge. Internet-based interventions are often coined as cost-effective alternatives to usual care, but the evidence is mixed. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to review the literature on the cost-effectiveness of internet interventions for mental disorders compared with usual care and to provide an estimate of the monetary benefits of such interventions compared with usual care. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted, which included participants with symptoms of mental disorders; investigated a telephone- or internet-based intervention; included a control condition in the form of treatment as usual, psychological placebo, waiting list control, or bibliotherapy; reported outcomes on both quality of life and costs; and included articles published in English. Electronic databases such as PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were used. Data on risk of bias, quality of the economic evaluation, quality-adjusted life years, and costs were extracted from the included studies, and the incremental net benefit was calculated and pooled. RESULTS: The search yielded 6226 abstracts, and 37 studies with 14,946 participants were included. The quality of economic evaluations of the included studies was rated as moderate, and the risk of bias was high. A random-effects approach was maintained. Analyses suggested internet interventions were slightly more effective than usual care in terms of quality-adjusted life years gain (Hedges g=0.052, 95% CI 0.010-0.094; P=.02) and equally expensive (Hedges g=0.002, 95% CI -0.080 to 0.84; P=.96). The pooled incremental net benefit was US $255 (95% CI US $91 to US $419; P=.002), favoring internet interventions over usual care. The perspective of the economic evaluation and targeted mental disorder moderated the results. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the cost-effectiveness of internet interventions for mental disorders compared with a care-as-usual approach is likely, but generalizability to new studies is poor given the substantial heterogeneity. This is the first study in the field of mental health to pool cost-effectiveness outcomes in an aggregate data meta-analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019141659; https://tinyurl.com/3cu99b34.

Cost-effectiveness of three internet-based interventions for eating disorders: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was assessing the cost-effectiveness of an internet-based self-help program, expert-patient support, and the combination of both compared to a care-as-usual condition. METHOD: An economic evaluation from a societal perspective was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. Participants aged 16 or older with at least mild eating disorder symptoms were randomly assigned to four conditions: (1) Featback, an online unguided self-help program, (2) chat or e-mail support from a recovered expert patient, (3) Featback with expert-patient support, and (4) care-as-usual. After a baseline assessment and intervention period of 8 weeks, five online assessments were conducted over 12 months of follow-up. The main result constituted cost-utility acceptability curves with quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs over the entire study duration. RESULTS: No significant differences between the conditions were found regarding QALYs, health care costs and societal costs. Nonsignificant differences in QALYs were in favor of the Featback conditions and the lowest societal costs per participant were observed in the Featback only condition (€16,741) while the highest costs were seen in the care-as-usual condition (€28,479). The Featback only condition had the highest probability of being efficient compared to the alternatives for all acceptable willingness-to-pay values. DISCUSSION: Featback, an internet-based unguided self-help intervention, was likely to be efficient compared to Featback with guidance from an expert patient, guidance alone and a care-as-usual condition. Results suggest that scalable interventions such as Featback may reduce health care costs and help individuals with eating disorders that are currently not reached by other forms of treatment. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Internet-based interventions for eating disorders might reach individuals in society who currently do not receive appropriate treatment at low costs. Featback, an online automated self-help program for eating disorders, was found to improve quality of life slightly while reducing costs for society, compared to a do-nothing approach. Consequently, implementing internet-based interventions such as Featback likely benefits both individuals suffering from an eating disorder and society as a whole.

The ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults Instrument for Capabilities: Development of a Tariff for the Dutch General Population.

OBJECTIVES: The ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses 5 capabilities (stability, attachment, autonomy, achievement, and enjoyment) that are important to one's quality of life and might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires currently used in economic evaluations. This study aimed to develop a Dutch tariff of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A. METHODS: The methods used are similar to those used in the development of the UK tariff. A profile case best-worst scaling task was presented to 1002 participants from the general Dutch population. A scale-adjusted latent class analysis was performed to test for preferences of ICECAP-A capabilities and scale heterogeneity. RESULTS: A 3-preference class 2-scale class model with worst choice as scale predictor was considered optimal and was used to calculate the resulting tariff. Results indicated that the capabilities stability, attachment, and enjoyment were considered more important aspects of quality of life than autonomy and achievement. Additionally, improving capabilities from low to moderate levels had a larger effect on quality of life than improving capabilities that were already at a higher level. CONCLUSIONS: The ICECAP-A tariffs found in this study could be used in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions in The Netherlands.

The ICECAP-A instrument for capabilities: assessment of construct validity and test-retest reliability in a general Dutch population.

PURPOSE: The ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses five capabilities that are important to one's well-being. The instrument might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires when evaluating quality of life extending beyond health. This study aimed to conduct a psychometric assessment of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A. METHODS: Construct validity of the instrument was assessed in two ways. First, by measuring correlations with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and a measure of self-efficacy and, second, by investigating the ability to distinguish between groups known to differ on the construct the ICECAP-A means to capture. Additionally, test-retest reliability was evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 1002 participants representative of the general Dutch population completed an online survey. For test-retest reliability, 252 participants completed the same questionnaire 2 weeks later. The ICECAP-A indicated moderate to strong correlations with the EQ-5D-5L and a strong correlation with self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was capable of differentiating known groups. Moreover, results indicated adequate test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79. CONCLUSION: In summary, results suggest adequate test-retest reliability and construct validity and indicate that the ICECAP-A might be of added value, especially when considering areas outside of the traditional health intervention model.