Promoting alcohol treatment engagement post-hospitalization with brief intervention, medications and CBT4CBT: protocol for a randomized clinical trial in a diverse patient population.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) commonly causes hospitalization, particularly for individuals disproportionately impacted by structural racism and other forms of marginalization. The optimal approach for engaging hospitalized patients with AUD in treatment post-hospital discharge is unknown. We describe the rationale, aims, and protocol for Project ENHANCE (ENhancing Hospital-initiated Alcohol TreatmeNt to InCrease Engagement), a clinical trial testing increasingly intensive approaches using a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation approach. METHODS: We are randomizing English and/or Spanish-speaking individuals with untreated AUD (n = 450) from a large, urban, academic hospital in New Haven, CT to: (1) Brief Negotiation Interview (with referral and telephone booster) alone (BNI), (2) BNI plus facilitated initiation of medications for alcohol use disorder (BNI + MAUD), or (3) BNI + MAUD + initiation of computer-based training for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT4CBT, BNI + MAUD + CBT4CBT). Interventions are delivered by Health Promotion Advocates. The primary outcome is AUD treatment engagement 34 days post-hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include AUD treatment engagement 90 days post-discharge and changes in self-reported alcohol use and phosphatidylethanol. Exploratory outcomes include health care utilization. We will explore whether the effectiveness of the interventions on AUD treatment engagement and alcohol use outcomes differ across and within racialized and ethnic groups, consistent with disproportionate impacts of AUD. Lastly, we will conduct an implementation-focused process evaluation, including individual-level collection and statistical comparisons between the three conditions of costs to providers and to patients, cost-effectiveness indices (effectiveness/cost ratios), and cost-benefit indices (benefit/cost ratios, net benefit [benefits minus costs). Graphs of individual- and group-level effectiveness x cost, and benefits x costs, will portray relationships between costs and effectiveness and between costs and benefits for the three conditions, in a manner that community representatives also should be able to understand and use. CONCLUSIONS: Project ENHANCE is expected to generate novel findings to inform future hospital-based efforts to promote AUD treatment engagement among diverse patient populations, including those most impacted by AUD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05338151.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of Shamiri, a brief, layperson-delivered intervention for Kenyan adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have the highest socio-economic burden of mental health disorders, yet the fewest resources for treatment. Recently, many intervention strategies, including the use of brief, scalable interventions, have emerged as ways of reducing the mental health treatment gap in LMICs. But how do decision makers prioritize and optimize the allocation of limited resources? One approach is through the evaluation of delivery costs alongside intervention effectiveness of various types of interventions. Here, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Shamiri, a group- and school-based intervention for adolescent depression and anxiety that is delivered by lay providers and that teaches growth mindset, gratitude, and value affirmation. METHODS: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of Shamiri using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines for economic evaluations. Changes in depression and anxiety were estimated using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD-7) at treatment termination and 7-month follow-up using two definitions of treatment benefit. Cost-effectiveness metrics included effectiveness-cost ratios and cost per number needed to treat. RESULTS: Base case cost assumptions estimated that delivering Shamiri cost $15.17 (in 2021 U.S. dollars) per student. A sensitivity analysis, which varied cost and clinical change definitions, estimated it cost between $48.28 and $172.72 to help 1 student in Shamiri, relative to the control, achieve reliable and clinically significant change in depression and anxiety by 7-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Shamiri appears to be a low-cost intervention that can produce clinically meaningful reductions in depression and anxiety. Lay providers can deliver effective treatment for a fraction of the training time that is required to become a licensed mental health provider (10 days vs. multiple years), which is a strength from an economic perspective. Additionally, Shamiri produced reliable and clinically significant reductions in depression and anxiety after only four weekly sessions instead of the traditional 12-16 weekly sessions necessary for gold-standard cognitive behavioral therapy. The school setting, group format, and economic context of a LMIC influenced the cost per student; however, broader conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of Shamiri have yet to be determined due to limited economic evaluations of mental health programs in LMICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered prior to participant enrollment in the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR201906525818462), registered 20 Jun 2019, https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/Search.aspx .

Cost-inclusive research on health psychology interventions: Why, how, and what next.

Cost-inclusive research (CIR) uses observations, interviews, self-reports, and archival records to collect data on the types, amounts, and monetary values of resources that make health psychology interventions (HPIs) possible in healthcare and community settings. These resources include time of practitioners, patients, administrators, space in clinics and hospitals, computer hardware, software, telecommunications, and transportation. CIR adopts a societal perspective by including patient resources such as time spent participating in HPIs, income foregone for participation, travel time and transportation to and from HPI sites, patients' information devices, and child- and eldercare necessitated by HPI participation. This comprehensive approach to HPIs also distinguishes between costs and outcomes of delivery systems, and of techniques used in HPIs. CIR can help justify funding of HPIs by including not only problem-specific outcomes (effectiveness), but also monetary outcomes (benefits) of HPIs, including changes in patient use of services for health and education, patient criminal justice involvement, financial assistance to patients, and changes in patient income. By measuring the types and amounts of resources consumed in specific activities of HPIs, and monetary and nonmonetary outcomes of HPIs, we can better understand, budget for, and disseminate interventions that work and are accessible by most people who need them. Combining effectiveness findings with data on costs and benefits can build a more complete evidence base for optimizing impacts of health psychology, including empirically selected stepwise interventions to deliver the best interventions in health psychology to the most patients for the least amount of necessary societal and healthcare resources. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Costs, benefits, and net benefit of 13 inpatient substance use treatments for 14,947 women and men.

In an attempt to replicate earlier findings that substance use disorder treatment (SUDTx) has monetary outcomes (benefits) for taxpayers that exceed treatment costs several times over for the average participant, costs of SUDTx were contrasted to observed costs of healthcare, criminal justice services, and economic assistance, plus potential increases in earned income, for 14,947 substance-using individuals treated at 13 intensive inpatient programs varying in gender sensitivity. Those who received higher levels of gender-sensitive treatment were expected to better offset treatment costs through greater reductions in subsequent service costs and economic assistance, and greater increases in earned income. Compared to the 24 months preceding treatment, archival data from state databases showed that use of health and criminal justice services, and receipt of economic assistance, actually increased during the 24 months following treatment, and that earned income decreased, resulting in unexpectedly negative net benefits, i.e., a net loss, from a taxpayer perspective. More gender-sensitive treatment was less costly per participant, however, making the net loss less for persons receiving more gender-sensitive treatment. Alternative explanations for these findings are explored, including utilization of archival records of service use rather than the more bias-sensitive self-reports of service use that others have examined previously. The importance of evaluating nonmonetary, as well as monetary, outcomes of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is noted as well.

Costs, benefits, and cost-benefit of Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality versus enhanced treatment as usual.

Suicide rates have been steadily increasing in both the U.S. general population and military, with significant psychological and economic consequences. The purpose of the current study was to examine the economic costs and cost-benefit of the suicide-focused Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) intervention versus enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) in an active duty military sample using data from a recent randomized controlled trial of CAMS versus ETAU. The full intent-to-treat sample included 148 participants (mean age 26.8 years ± 5.9 SD years, 80% male, 53% White). Using a micro-costing approach, the cost of each condition was calculated at the individual level from a healthcare system perspective. Benefits were estimated at the individual level as cost savings in past-year healthcare expenditures based on direct care reimbursement rates. Cost-benefit was examined in the form of cost-benefit ratios and net benefit. Total costs, benefits, cost-benefit ratios, and net benefit were calculated and analyzed using general linear mixed modeling on multiply imputed datasets. Results indicated that treatment costs did not differ significantly between conditions; however, CAMS was found to produce significantly greater benefit in the form of decreased healthcare expenditures at 6-month follow-up. CAMS also demonstrated significantly greater cost-benefit ratios (i.e., benefit per dollar spent on treatment) and net-benefit (i.e., total benefit less the cost of treatment) at 12-month follow-up. The current study suggests that beyond its clinical effectiveness, CAMS may also convey potential economic advantages over usual care for the treatment of suicidal active duty service members. Our findings demonstrate cost savings in the form of reduced healthcare expenditures, which theoretically represent resources that can be reallocated toward other healthcare system needs, and thus lend support toward the overall value of CAMS.

Economic evaluation of an online single-session intervention for depression in Kenyan adolescents.

Objective: To evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of Shamiri-Digital, an online single-session intervention (SSI) for depression among Kenyan adolescents. Method: Data were drawn from a randomized clinical trial with n = 103 Kenyan high school students (64% female, Mage = 15.5). All students were eligible to participate, regardless of baseline depression symptomatology. We estimated delivery costs in 2020 U.S. dollars from multiple perspectives. To account for uncertainty, we performed sensitivity analyses with different cost assumptions and definitions of effectiveness. Using number needed to treat (NNT) estimates, we also evaluated the cost required to achieve a clinically meaningful reduction in depressive symptoms. Results: In the base-case (the most realistic cost estimate), it costs U.S. $3.57 per student to deliver Shamiri-Digital. Depending on the definition of clinically meaningful improvement, 7.1-9.7 students needed to receive the intervention for one student to experience a clinically meaningful improvement, which translated to a cost of U.S. $25.35 to U.S. $34.62 per student. Under a worst-case scenario (i.e., assuming the highest treatment cost and the strictest effectiveness definition), the cost to achieve clinically meaningful improvement was U.S. $92.05 per student. Conclusions: Shamiri-Digital is a low-cost intervention for reducing depression symptomatology. The public health benefit of empirically supported SSIs is especially important in low-income countries, where funding for mental health care is most limited. Future research can compare the cost-effectiveness of online SSIs to higher-cost treatments and estimate the robustness of Shamiri-Digital's effects over a longer time horizon. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Toward collaborative cost-inclusive evaluation: Adaptations and transformations for evaluators and economists.

As evaluators and economists expand their domains of research, consulting, teaching, and publication, they find themselves needing each other more and yet increasingly at odds. Often surprised at the resistance they encounter from one another, sometimes dismissive of contributions the other can make, all should consider adaptations and transformations of roles, approaches, methods, analyses, and decision-making algorithms that would allow better collaboration. The particularly multidisciplinary area of cost-inclusive evaluation requires (a) changes in approaches and methods used by evaluators and economists, (b) changes that evaluators need to make when working with economists, and (c) changes that economists need to make when working with evaluators. Some of the changes needed are illustrated with examples drawn from proposals and manuscripts for contemporary cost-inclusive evaluations. A key reframing needed is that cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses are "and" rather than "or" activities: cost-inclusive evaluation works best, and perhaps only really works, when evaluators and economists interweave their efforts to support and learn from each other. So may most future endeavors to which multiple disciplines contribute.

A pilot economic evaluation of computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for alcohol use disorder as an addition and alternative to traditional therapy.

BACKGROUND: Computer-based delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may be a less costly approach to increase dissemination and implementation of evidence-based treatments for alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, comprehensive evaluations of costs, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit of computer-delivered interventions are rare. METHODS: This study used data from a completed randomized clinical trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a computer-based version of CBT (CBT4CBT) for AUD. Sixty-three participants were randomized to receive one of the following treatments at an outpatient treatment facility and attended at least one session: (1) treatment as usual (TAU), (2) CBT4CBT plus treatment as usual (CBT4CBT+TAU), or (3) CBT4CBT plus brief monitoring. RESULTS: Median protocol treatment costs per participant differed significantly between conditions, Kruskal-Wallis H(2) = 8.40, p = 0.02, such that CBT4CBT+TAU and CBT4CBT+monitoring each cost significantly more per participant than TAU. However, when nonprotocol treatment costs were included, total treatment costs per participant did not differ significantly between conditions. Median incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) revealed that CBT4CBT+TAU was more costly and more effective than TAU. It cost $35.08 to add CBT4CBT to TAU to produce a reduction of one additional drinking day per month between baseline and the end of the 8-week treatment protocol: CBT4CBT+monitoring cost $33.70 less to produce a reduction of one additional drinking day per month because CBT4CBT+monitoring was less costly than TAU and more effective at treatment termination, though not significantly so. Net benefit analyses suggested that costs of treatment, regardless of condition, did not offset monthly costs related to healthcare utilization, criminal justice involvement, and employment disruption between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Benefit-cost ratios were similar for each condition. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this pilot economic evaluation suggest that an 8-week course of CBT4CBT may be a cost-effective addition and potential alternative to standard outpatient treatment for AUD. Additional research is needed to generate conclusions about the cost-benefit of providing CBT4CBT to treatment-seeking individuals participating in standard outpatient treatment.

Research on Improving Outcomes and Reducing Costs of Psychological Interventions: Toward Delivering the Best to the Most for the Least.

Treatment and prevention efforts guided by psychological theory, research, and practice can have outcomes of greater value than the resources consumed by those efforts-and outcomes superior to those attainable by other means, often at lower costs. How can we make this hope true more often, for more of the clients who need our services, despite severe resource constraints? Routinely reporting the costs, effectiveness, and benefits of psychological interventions from client, practitioner, and societal perspectives is only a beginning. We also need to use descriptive and inferential statistics to measure, report, and analyze the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of our interventions to discover the strongest determinants of intervention costs and outcomes. The emerging literature on cost-inclusive research in psychology suggests that delivery systems are one primary determinant of costs and outcomes of most interventions, as are the psychological techniques applied.

Commentary on "Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science".

The current paper is a commentary on the Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science (Crowley et al. 2018). Although the standards got a lot right, some important issues were not addressed or could be explored further. Measuring rather than modeling is encouraged whenever possible. That also is in keeping with the approach taken by many prevention researchers. Pre-program planning for collection of data on resources used by individual participants (i.e., costs) is recommended, along with devotion of evaluation resources to cost assessment throughout program implementation. A "cost study" should never be an afterthought tacked on as a later aim in a research proposal. Needing inclusion or enhancement in the standards, however, are several key concepts, starting with the often-confused distinction between costs and outcomes. The importance of collecting data on individual-level variability in resource use, i.e., costs, needs to be distinguished from simplistic disaggregation-by-division of program cost totals down to individuals. In some passages of the standards, the uniqueness of individual participants seems dismissed as error variance rather than considered a primary phenomenon for study and understanding. Standards for formatting reports of economic evaluations could themselves be more evidence-based. Missing too is an explicit call for inclusion of the standards' recommendations in peer review of prevention research proposals, and in funding of prevention research. Finally, we can be confident that the better outcomes the standards promise will come at additional costs to prevention researchers. This commentary concludes by considering whether the standards themselves are cost-beneficial.

Keeping Clubhouses Open: Toward a Roadmap for Sustainability.

Clubhouses are recovery centers that help persons with serious mental illness obtain and maintain community-based employment, education, housing, social integration, and other services. Key informants from U.S. clubhouses were interviewed to create a conceptual framework for clubhouse sustainability. Survival analyses tested this model for 261 clubhouses. Clubhouses stayed open significantly longer if they had received full accreditation, had more administrative autonomy, and received funding from multiple rather than sole sources. Cox regression analyses showed that freestanding clubhouses which were accredited endured the longest. Budget size, clubhouse size, and access to managed care did not contribute significantly to sustainability.

Patient and program costs, and outcomes, of including gender-sensitive services in intensive inpatient programs for substance use.

Gender-sensitive services (GSS) attempt to make substance use treatment better for women, but at what cost and with what results? We sought answers to these questions in a federally-funded study by measuring separately the patient and provider costs of adding GSS, outcomes, and cost-outcome relationships for 12 mixed-gender intensive inpatient programs (IIP) that varied in amounts and types of GSS. GSS costs to female inpatients included time devoted to GSS and expenses for care of dependents while in the IIP. GSS costs to providers included time spent with patients, indirect services, treatment facilities, equipment, and materials. Offering more GSS was expected to consume more patient and provider resources. Offering more GSS also was expected to enhance outcomes and cost-outcome relationships. We found that average GSS costs to patients at the IIPs were $585 ($515-$656) per patient. Average GSS costs to providers at the IIPs were $344 ($42-$544) per patient. GSS costs to patients significantly exceeded GSS costs to providers. Contrary to previous research, offering more GSS services to patients did not result in significantly higher costs to patients or providers. IIPs offering more GSS may have delivered fewer traditional services, but this did not significantly affect outcomes, i.e., days until returning to another substance use treatment. In fact, median cost-outcome for these IIPs was a promising 35 treatment-free days, i.e., over a month, per $100 of GSS resources used by patients and providers.

Social Return On Investment (SROI): Problems, solutions and is SROI a good investment?

The conclusion of this special issue on Social Return On Investment (SROI) begins with a summary of both advantages and problems of SROI, many of which were identified in preceding articles. We also offer potential solutions for some of these problems that can be derived from standard evaluation practices and that are becoming expected in SROIs that follow guidances from international SROI networks. A remaining concern about SROI is that we do not yet know if SROI itself adds sufficient benefit to programs to justify its cost. Two frameworks for this proposed metaevaluation of SROI are suggested, the first comparing benefits to costs summatively (the resource→outcome model). The second framework evaluates costs and benefits according to how much they contribute to or are caused by the different activities of SROI. This resource→activity→outcome model could enable outcomes of SROI to be maximized within resource constraints (such as budget and time limits) on SROI. Alternatively, information from this model could help minimize the costs of achieving a specific level of return on investment from conducting SROI. Possible problems with this metaevaluation of SROI are discussed.

Introduction: Social Return On Investment (SROI).

An introduction to the issue Social Return On Investment (SROI), including an overview of problems prompting this special issue, plus definitions and examples of terms in this exciting, burgeoning area of cost-inclusive evaluation.

Randomized Trial of Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol Use Disorders: Efficacy as a Virtual Stand-Alone and Treatment Add-On Compared with Standard Outpatient Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment for alcohol use disorders (AUDs), yet is rarely implemented with high fidelity in clinical practice. Computer-based delivery of CBT offers the potential to address dissemination challenges, but to date there have been no evaluations of a web-based CBT program for alcohol use within a clinical sample. METHODS: This study randomized treatment-seeking individuals with a current AUD to 1 of 3 treatments at a community outpatient facility: (i) standard treatment as usual (TAU); (ii) TAU plus on-site access to a computerized CBT targeting alcohol use (TAU + CBT4CBT); or (iii) CBT4CBT plus brief weekly clinical monitoring (CBT4CBT + monitoring). Participant alcohol use was assessed weekly during an 8-week treatment period, as well as 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-eight individuals (65% male; 54% African American) were randomized (TAU = 22; TAU + CBT4CBT = 22; CBT4CBT + monitoring = 24). There were significantly higher rates of treatment completion among participants assigned to 1 of the CBT4CBT conditions compared to TAU (Wald = 6.86, p < 0.01). Significant reductions in alcohol use were found across all conditions within treatment, with participants assigned to TAU + CBT4CBT demonstrating greater increases in percentage of days abstinent (PDA) compared to TAU, t(536.4) = 2.68, p < 0.01, d = 0.71, 95% CI (0.60, 3.91), for the full sample. Preliminary findings suggest the estimated costs of all self-reported AUD-related services utilized by participants were considerably lower for those assigned to CBT4CBT conditions compared to TAU, both within treatment and during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrated the safety, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of web-based CBT4CBT targeting alcohol use. CBT4CBT was superior to TAU at increasing PDA when delivered as an add-on, and it was not significantly different from TAU or TAU + CBT4CBT when delivered with clinical monitoring only.

Consumer-Operated Service Programs: monetary and donated costs and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: Examine cost differences between Consumer Operated Service Programs (COSPs) as possibly determined by a) size of program, b) use of volunteers and other donated resources, c) cost-of-living differences between program locales, d) COSP model applied, and e) delivery system used to implement the COSP model. METHODS: As part of a larger evaluation of COSP, data on operating costs, enrollments, and mobilization of donated resources were collected for eight programs representing three COSP models (drop-in centers, mutual support, and education/advocacy training). Because the 8 programs were operated in geographically diverse areas of the US, costs were examined with and without adjustment for differences in local cost of living. Because some COSPs use volunteers and other donated resources, costs were measured with and without these resources being monetized. Scale of operation also was considered as a mediating variable for differences in program costs. RESULTS: Cost per visit, cost per consumer per quarter, and total program cost were calculated separately for funds spent and for resources donated for each COSP. Differences between COSPs in cost per consumer and cost per visit seem better explained by economies of scale and delivery system used than by cost-of-living differences between program locations or COSP model. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Given others' findings that different COSP models produce little variation in service effectiveness, minimize service costs by maximizing scale of operation while using a delivery system that allows staff and facilities resources to be increased or decreased quickly to match number of consumers seeking services.

Delivery Systems Can Determine Therapy Cost, and Effectiveness, More Than Type of Therapy.

We should go further than Kazdin and Blase (2011) in emphasizing the importance of the costs and effectiveness of alternative delivery systems for therapies. I propose that the manner in which therapy is delivered often determines its cost, and its effectiveness, more than the type of therapy delivered. In this article, I illustrate this argument through compiled research and describe several inexpensive delivery systems with the aid of metaphors.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of cognitive therapy, rational emotive behavioral therapy, and fluoxetine (Prozac) in treating depression: a randomized clinical trial.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of cognitive therapy (CT), rational emotive behavioral therapy (REBT), and fluoxetine (Prozac) for major depressive disorder (MDD) were compared in a randomized clinical trial with a Romanian sample of 170 clients. Each intervention was offered for 14 weeks, plus three booster sessions. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores were obtained prior to intervention, 7 and 14 weeks following the start of intervention, and 6 months following completion of intervention. CT, REBT, and fluoxetine did not differ significantly in changes in the BDI, depression-free days (DFDs), or Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Average BDI scores decreased from 31.1 before treatment to 9.7 six months following completion of treatment. Due to lower costs, both psychotherapies were more cost-effective, and had better cost-utility, than pharmacotherapy: median $26.44/DFD gained/month for CT and $23.77/DFD gained/month for REBT versus $34.93/DFD gained/month for pharmacotherapy, median $/QALYs=$1,638, $1,734, and $2,287 for CT, REBT, and fluoxetine (Prozac), respectively.

Cost-inclusive evaluation: a banquet of approaches for including costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in your next evaluation.

An introduction to the special issue on cost-inclusive evaluation, providing a brief history of the use of costs, benefits, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit analyses in the evaluation of human services. Two tables present brief glossaries of terms and analyses common in cost-inclusive program evaluation.

Estimating health utilities and quality adjusted life years in seasonal affective disorder research.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) episodes will recur annually without effective intervention. Effectiveness of such interventions is traditionally measured with depression-specific tools (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory 2nd Edition; BDI-II). In a climate of potentially scarce resources, generic outcomes, such as Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), are recommended for cost-effectiveness research. For treatments to be deemed cost-effective, they must show effectiveness relative to each other and relative to interventions across other disorders. To date, QALYs have not been used to determine effectiveness of SAD treatments. Given the recurrent nature of SAD, QALYs, which weight quality of life with time, are an ideal SAD treatment outcome. METHOD: A method to assess QALYs for SAD was developed using pilot clinical trial data. The method estimated health utilities, a measure of quality of life for a QALY, by anchoring pilot BDI-II data from the SAD clinical trial with previously derived health utilities for nonseasonal depression. RESULTS: Relative to no treatment, median QALYs gained ranged from 0.11-0.18 over 1 year, depending on the intervention assessed. DISCUSSION: Any treatment for SAD must compete with spontaneous spring remission, as illness severity attenuates in the spring. LIMITATIONS: Health utilities were estimated from the depression literature, and potential side effects from SAD treatments were not included in the estimates. The clinical trial time horizon was limited to 1-year. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method offers researchers a tool to transform SAD efficacy data into a generic outcome for use in cost-effectiveness analysis of SAD treatments.