Behaviour change interventions to improve physical activity in adults: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Behaviour change interventions can result in lasting improvements in physical activity (PA). A broad implementation of behaviour change interventions are likely to be associated with considerable additional costs, and the evidence is unclear whether they represent good value for money. The aim of this study was to investigate costs and cost-effectiveness of behaviour change interventions to increase PA in community-dwelling adults. METHODS: A search for trial-based economic evaluations investigating behaviour change interventions versus usual care or alternative intervention for adults living in the community was conducted (September 2023). Studies that reported intervention costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PA or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-list). A Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation style approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence (low, moderate or high certainty). RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included using a variety of economic perspectives. The behaviour change interventions were heterogeneous with 62% of interventions being informed by a theoretical framework. The median CHEC-list score was 15 (range 11 to 19). Median intervention cost was US$313 per person (range US$83 to US$1,298). In 75% of studies the interventions were reported as cost-effective for changes in PA (moderate certainty of evidence). For cost per QALY/gained, 45% of the interventions were found to be cost-effective (moderate certainty of evidence). No specific type of behaviour change intervention was found to be more effective. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate certainty that behaviour change interventions are cost-effective approaches for increasing PA. The heterogeneity in economic perspectives, intervention costs and measurement should be considered when interpreting results. There is a need for increased clarity when reporting the functional components of behaviour change interventions, as well as the costs to implement them.

Internet-Delivered Exposure and Response Prevention for Pediatric Tourette Syndrome: 12-Month Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Behavior therapy is a recommended intervention for Tourette syndrome (TS) and chronic tic disorder (CTD), but availability is limited and long-term effects are uncertain. Objective: To investigate the long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of therapist-supported, internet-delivered exposure and response prevention (ERP) vs psychoeducation for youths with TS or CTD. Design, Setting, And Participants: This 12-month controlled follow-up of a parallel group, superiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at a research clinic in Stockholm, Sweden, with nationwide recruitment. In total, 221 participants aged 9 to 17 years with TS or CTD were enrolled between April 26, 2019, and April 9, 2021, of whom 208 (94%) provided 12-month follow-up data. Final follow-up data were collected on June 29, 2022. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Interventions: A total of 111 participants were originally randomly allocated to 10 weeks of therapist-supported, internet-delivered ERP and 110 participants to therapist-supported, internet-delivered psychoeducation. Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary outcome was within-group change in tic severity, measured by the Total Tic Severity Score of the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS-TTSS), from the 3-month follow-up to the 12-month follow-up. Treatment response was defined as 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale. Analyses were intention-to-treat and followed the plan prespecified in the published study protocol. A health economic evaluation was performed from 3 perspectives: health care organization (including direct costs for treatment provided in the study), health care sector (additionally including health care resource use outside of the study), and societal (additionally including costs beyond health care [eg, parent's absenteeism from work]). Results: In total, 221 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 12.1 [2.3] years; 152 [69%] male). According to the YGTSS-TTSS, there were no statistically significant changes in tic severity from the 3-month to the 12-month follow-up in either group (ERP coefficient, -0.52 [95% CI, -1.26 to 0.21]; P = .16; psychoeducation coefficient, 0.00 [95% CI, -0.78 to 0.78]; P > .99). A secondary analysis including all assessment points (baseline to 12-month follow-up) showed no statistically significant between-group difference in tic severity from baseline to the 12-month follow-up (coefficient, -0.38 [95% CI, -1.11 to 0.35]; P = .30). Treatment response rates were similar in both groups (55% in ERP and 50% in psychoeducation; odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.73-2.16]; P = .42) at the 12-month follow-up. The health economic evaluation showed that, from a health care sector perspective, ERP produced more quality-adjusted life years (0.01 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03]) and lower costs (adjusted mean difference -$84.48 [95% CI, -$440.20 to $977.60]) than psychoeducation at the 12-month follow-up. From the health care organization and societal perspectives, ERP produced more quality-adjusted life years at higher costs, with 65% to 78% probability of ERP being cost-effective compared with psychoeducation when using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $79 000. Conclusions And Relevance: There were no statistically significant changes in tic severity from the 3-month through to the 12-month follow-up in either group. The ERP intervention was not superior to psychoeducation at any time point. While ERP was not superior to psychoeducation alone in reducing tic severity at the end of the follow-up period, ERP is recommended for clinical implementation due to its likely cost-effectiveness and support from previous literature. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03916055.

Evaluating a novel online behavioural intervention to encourage cost-conscious strategies among US adults with chronic conditions who are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan: a proof-of-concept pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with chronic conditions enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) face cost-related access barriers and high out-of-pocket spending. Our objectives were to develop a novel behavioural intervention to help HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions use cost-conscious strategies and evaluate the intervention's preliminary effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Online (USA). PARTICIPANTS: 36 US adults enrolled in an HDHP through their employer or an exchange with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, coronary artery disease and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 31/36 participants completed the study. INTERVENTION: We developed a 5-week intervention consisting of a website with educational modules on discussing costs with clinicians, saving for future healthcare costs, comparing healthcare prices and quality, preparing for appointments, following up after appointments and planning for future healthcare needs; and emails encouraging participants to access each module. OUTCOMES: We conducted a single-arm proof-of-concept pilot study of the intervention. Baseline and postintervention surveys measured primary outcomes of health insurance literacy and confidence in using cost-conscious strategies. 10 participants completed postintervention interviews. RESULTS: 31 (86%) participants completed a baseline and postintervention survey. Mean health insurance literacy scores (20-80 scale) improved from 56.5 to 67.1 (p<0.001). Mean confidence scores (0-10 scale) improved for talking to a healthcare provider about cost (6.1-7.6, p=0.0094), saving for healthcare (5.8-6.6, p=0.068), comparing prices (5.4-6.9, p=0.005) and comparing quality (6.1 to 7.6, p=0.0034). Participants found the website easy to use and helpful for learning about cost-conscious strategies on postintervention interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel behavioural intervention was acceptable to HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions, feasible to deliver and associated with increased health insurance literacy and confidence in using cost-conscious strategies. This intervention should be tested in a definitive randomised controlled trial that is fully powered to evaluate its effects on cost-related access barriers, out-of-pocket spending and health outcomes in this growing patient population.

Empirical Development of a Behavioral Intervention for African American/Black and Latino Persons with Unsuppressed HIV Viral Load Levels: An Application of the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) Using Cost-Effectiveness as an Optimization Objective.

We used results from an optimization randomized controlled trial which tested five behavioral intervention components to support HIV antiretroviral adherence/HIV viral suppression, grounded in the multiphase optimization strategy and using a fractional factorial design to identify intervention components with cost-effectiveness sufficiently favorable for scalability. Results were incorporated into a validated HIV computer simulation to simulate longer-term effects of combinations of components on health and costs. We simulated the 32 corresponding long-term trajectories for viral load suppression, health related quality of life (HRQoL), and costs. The components were designed to be culturally and structurally salient. They were: motivational interviewing counseling sessions (MI), pre-adherence skill building (SB), peer mentorship (PM), focused support groups (SG), and patient navigation (short version [NS], long version [NL]. All participants also received health education on HIV treatment. We examined four scenarios: one-time intervention with and without discounting and continuous interventions with and without discounting. In all four scenarios, interventions that comprise or include SB and NL (and including health education) were cost effective (< $100,000/quality-adjusted life year). Further, with consideration of HRQoL impact, maximal intervention became cost-effective enough to be scalable. Thus, a fractional factorial experiment coupled with cost-effectiveness analysis is a promising approach to optimize multi-component interventions for scalability. The present study can guide service planning efforts for HIV care settings and health departments.

Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit. METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic. RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.

Economic Evaluation of Videoconference Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Behavioral Activation Therapy for Depression Versus Usual Care Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain Plus Comorbid Depressive Symptoms.

Chronic pain and depression are frequently comorbid conditions associated with significant health care and social costs. This study examined the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of videoconference-based group forms of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Behavioral Activation Therapy for Depression (BATD), as a complement to treatment-as-usual (TAU), for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) plus depressive symptoms, compared to TAU alone. A trial-based economic evaluation (n = 234) was conducted from a governmental and health care perspective with a time horizon of 12 months. Primary outcomes were the Brief Pain Inventory-Interference Scale (BPI-IS) and Quality Adjusted Life Year. Compared to TAU, ACT achieved a significant reduction in total costs (d = .47), and BATD achieved significant reductions in indirect (d = .61) and total costs (d = .63). Significant improvements in BPI-IS (d = .73 and d = .66, respectively) and Quality Adjusted Life Year scores (d = .46 and d = .28, respectively) were found in ACT and BATD compared to TAU. No significant differences in costs and outcomes were found between ACT and BATD. In the intention-to-treat analyses, from the governmental and health care perspective, no significant differences in cost reduction and incremental effects were identified in the comparison between ACT, BATD, and TAU. However, in the complete case analysis, significant incremental effects of ACT (∆BPI-IS = -1.57 and -1.39, respectively) and BATD (∆BPI-IS = -1.08 and -1.04, respectively) compared with TAU were observed. In the per-protocol analysis, only the significant incremental effects of ACT (∆BPI-IS = -1.68 and -1.43, respectively) compared to TAU were detected. In conclusion, ACT and BATD might be efficient options in the management of CLBP plus comorbid depression symptoms as compared to usual care. However, no clear difference was found in the comparison between the 2 active therapies regarding cost-effectiveness or cost-utility. PERSPECTIVE: The economic evaluation of psychological therapies for the management of complex conditions can be used in decision-making and resource allocation. This study provides evidence that ACT and BATD are more effective and involve a greater reduction in costs than usual care in the management of CLBP plus comorbid depressive symptoms. TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04140838.

Exercise versus usual care after non-reconstructive breast cancer surgery (UK PROSPER): multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: 17 UK National Health Service cancer centres. PARTICIPANTS: 392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196). INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective. RESULTS: Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale -0.68, -1.23 to -0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) -2.02, -3.11 to -0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average -£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval -£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984.

Cost-effectiveness of a Smoking Cessation Intervention for Parents in Pediatric Primary Care.

Importance: Parental smoking adversely affects parents' and children's health. There are effective interventions delivered in pediatric settings to help parents quit smoking. The cost-effectiveness of this type of intervention is not known. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a parental smoking cessation intervention, the Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) program, delivered in pediatric primary care, compared with usual care from a health care organization's perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used data on intervention costs and parental smoking cessation collected prospectively as part of the CEASE randomized clinical trial. Data were collected at pediatric offices in 5 US states from April 2015 to October 2017. Participants included parents of children attending 10 pediatric primary care practices (5 control, 5 intervention). Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to August 2020. Exposures: The trial compared CEASE (practice training and support to address family tobacco use) vs usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The overall cost and incremental cost per quit of the CEASE intervention were calculated using microcosting methods. CEASE effectiveness was estimated using 2 trial outcomes measures assessed in repeated cross-sections: (1) change in smoking prevalence assessed by parental report for intervention vs usual care practices at 2 weeks after program initiation (baseline) and at 2-year follow-up and (2) changes in the proportion of smokers who achieved cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the previous 2 years at baseline vs follow-up. Monte Carlo analyses were used to provide 95% CIs. Results: The study included a total of 3054 participants (1523 at baseline and 1531 at follow-up); 2163 (70.8%) were aged 25 to 44 years old, and 2481 (81.2%) were women. Over 2 years, the total cost of implementing and sustaining CEASE across 5 intervention practices was $115 778. The incremental cost per quit for CEASE compared with usual care was $1132 (95% CI, $653-$3603), according to the change in parent-reported smoking prevalence, and $762 (95% CI, $418-$2883), according to cotinine-confirmed cessation. CEASE was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $2000 per quit in 88.0% of simulations based on the parent-reported smoking prevalence and 94.6% of simulations based on cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation measures. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the CEASE intervention was associated with an incremental cost per quit that compared favorably with those of other clinical smoking cessation interventions. CEASE is inexpensive to initiate and maintain in the clinical pediatric setting, suggesting that it has the potential for a high impact on population health.

Cost-effectiveness of Brief Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care.

Importance: Youth anxiety and depression are common and undertreated. Pediatric transdiagnostic interventions for anxiety and/or depression may be associated with improved access to treatment among youths. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pediatric transdiagnostic brief behavioral therapy (BBT) program for anxiety and/or depression compared with assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care (ARC). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective using data from a randomized clinical trial of youths with full or probable diagnoses of anxiety or depression who were recruited from pediatric clinics in San Diego, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The trial was conducted from October 6, 2010, through December 5, 2014, and this analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, through October 20, 2020. Interventions: In the randomized clinical trial, youths were randomized to BBT (n = 95) or ARC (n = 90). The BBT program consisted of 8 to 12 weekly 45-minute sessions of behavioral therapy delivered in pediatric clinics by master's-level therapists. Families randomized to ARC received personalized referrals to mental health care and telephone calls to support access to care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Anxiety-free days, depression-free days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from intake through 32-week follow-up. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for QALYs was used to assess the probability that BBT was cost-effective compared with ARC over a range of amounts that a decision-maker might be willing to pay for an additional outcome. Results: Enrolled patients included 185 youths (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [2.6] years; 107 [57.8%] female; 144 [77.8%] White; and 38 [20.7%] Hispanic). Youths who received BBT experienced significantly more anxiety-free days (difference, 28.63 days; 95% CI, 5.86-50.71 days; P = .01) and QALYs (difference, 0.026; 95% CI, 0.009-0.046; P = .007) compared with youths who received ARC. Youths who received BBT experienced more depression-free days than did youths who received ARC (difference, 10.52 days; 95% CI, -4.50 to 25.76 days; P = .18), but the difference was not statistically significant. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -$41 414 per QALY (95% CI, -$220 601 to $11 468). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis indicated that, at a recommended willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, the probability that BBT would be cost-effective compared with ARC at 32 weeks was 95.6%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, BBT in primary care was significantly associated with better outcomes and a greater probability of cost-effectiveness at 32 weeks compared with ARC. The findings suggest that transdiagnostic BBT may be associated with improved youth anxiety and functioning at a reasonable cost.

Evaluation of the cost-utility of a prescription digital therapeutic for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

Background: The opioid epidemic continues to generate a significant mental and physical health burden on patients, and claims the life of almost 150 Americans daily. Making matters worse, an increase in relapses and/or opioid-related deaths has been reported in more than 40 U.S. states since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Opioid use disorder (OUD) is one of the single most expensive disorders in the United States, generating average medical costs of $60B from just 2 million Americans diagnosed with the disorder. In commercial use since 2019, reSET-O is a non-drug, prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) that delivers evidence-based neurobehavioral treatment for OUD and helps overcome the barriers associated with access to care, stigma, and social distancing. Although shown to be cost effective and efficacious in clinical trials and real-world evidence studies, respectively, information on its value for money from a health utilities and cost per quality-adjusted life-year is needed to inform policy discussions.Objectives: To evaluate the impact of reSET-O on health utilities and assess its overall cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained vs. treatment-as-usual (TAU).Methods: Decision analytic model comparing reSET-O plus TAU to TAU alone (i.e. buprenorphine, face-to-face counseling, and contingency management) over 12 weeks. Clinical effectiveness data (abstinence and health utility) were obtained from a clinical trial, and resource utilization and cost data were adapted from a recent claims data analysis to reflect less frequent face-to-face counseling with the therapeutic.Results: The addition of reSET-O to TAU decreases total health care costs by -$131 and resulted in post-treatment utility values within population norms, with a corresponding gain of 0.003 QALYs. reSET-O when used adjunctively to TAU was economically dominant (less costly, more effective) vs. TAU alone.Conclusion: reSET-O is an economically-dominant adjunctive treatment for OUD and is associated with an overall reduction in total incremental cost vs TAU.

How Financial Incentives Increase Smoking Cessation: A Two-Level Path Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Financial incentives effectively increase smoking cessation rates, but it is unclear via which psychological mechanisms incentives influence quit behavior. The current study examines how receiving financial incentives for smoking cessation leads to quitting smoking and investigates several mediators and moderators of that relationship. AIMS AND METHODS: The study sample consisted of 604 tobacco-smoking employees from 61 companies in the Netherlands who completed a baseline and follow-up questionnaire. The current study is a secondary analysis from a cluster randomized trial where employees received smoking cessation group counseling at the workplace. Participants in the intervention group additionally received financial incentives of €350 in total for 12-month continuous smoking abstinence. We used a two-level path analysis to test a model that assesses the effects of financial incentives through smoking cessation program evaluation, medication use, nicotine replacement use, attitudes, self-efficacy, and social influences on quit success. We additionally tested whether an individual's reward responsiveness moderated the influence of incentives on quit success. RESULTS: The effect of financial incentives on quit success was mediated by a higher self-efficacy. Financial incentives were also associated with a higher use of cessation medication. A more positive program evaluation was related to higher self-efficacy, more social influence to quit, and more positive attitudes about quitting. The results did not differ significantly by individual reward responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that financial incentives may be used to increase medication use and self-efficacy for quitting smoking, which offers an indirect way to increase successful smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS: (1) This is the first study investigating via which psychological pathways financial incentives for quitting smoking can lead to long-term quit success. (2) The results showed a path between financial incentives and a higher likelihood of medication use. Incentives may encourage smokers to use medication in order to increase their chance of quitting smoking and receive the reward. (3) There was a path from financial incentives to quit success via a higher self-efficacy. (4) The effects of financial incentives did not depend on individual reward responsiveness.

Using Clinical Trial Data to Estimate the Costs of Behavioral Interventions for Potential Adopters: A Guide for Trialists.

Behavioral interventions involving electronic devices, financial incentives, gamification, and specially trained staff to encourage healthy behaviors are becoming increasingly prevalent and important in health innovation and improvement efforts. Although considerations of cost are key to their wider adoption, cost information is lacking because the resources required cannot be costed using standard administrative billing data. Pragmatic clinical trials that test behavioral interventions are potentially the best and often only source of cost information but rarely incorporate costing studies. This article provides a guide for researchers to help them collect and analyze, during the trial and with little additional effort, the information needed to inform potential adopters of the costs of adopting a behavioral intervention. A key challenge in using trial data is the separation of implementation costs, the costs an adopter would incur, from research costs. Based on experience with 3 randomized clinical trials of behavioral interventions, this article explains how to frame the costing problem, including how to think about costs associated with the control group, and describes methods for collecting data on individual costs: specifications for costing a technology platform that supports the specialized functions required, how to set up a time log to collect data on the time staff spend on implementation, and issues in getting data on device, overhead, and financial incentive costs.

Characterization of Family-Directed Care Coordination and Involvement in Behavioral Treatments in an Autism-Specific Medicaid Waiver.

Services for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their families have evolved with the advent of the Medicaid waiver, leading to more family-based coordination of care. Evaluating family involvement, the current investigation compared 230 families of children with ASD receiving Medicaid waiver services to a propensity-score matched group of 230 families who were waiting for such services (i.e., registry families). Compared to the registry, waiver families reported more involvement in service planning tasks, but not activities related to future-planning, managing crisis situations, or searching for and securing funding. Additional analyses characterize waiver families as engaging in high levels of coordinating and delivering behavioral interventions for their child. Implications for family burden and future programming for waiver programs are discussed.

Relative Cost Differences of Initial Treatment Strategies for Newly Diagnosed Opioid Use Disorder: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relative costs of care among treatment options for opioid use disorder (OUD) are unknown. METHODS: We identified a cohort of 40,885 individuals with a new diagnosis of OUD in a large national de-identified claims database covering commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees. We assigned individuals to 1 of 6 mutually exclusive initial treatment pathways: (1) Inpatient Detox/Rehabilitation Treatment Center; (2) Behavioral Health Intensive, intensive outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Services; (3) Methadone or Buprenorphine; (4) Naltrexone; (5) Behavioral Health Outpatient Services, or; (6) No Treatment. We assessed total costs of care in the initial 90 day treatment period for each strategy using a differences in differences approach controlling for baseline costs. RESULTS: Within 90 days of diagnosis, 94.8% of individuals received treatment, with the initial treatments being: 15.8% for Inpatient Detox/Rehabilitation Treatment Center, 4.8% for Behavioral Health Intensive, Intensive Outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Services, 12.5% for buprenorphine/methadone, 2.4% for naltrexone, and 59.3% for Behavioral Health Outpatient Services. Average unadjusted costs increased from $3250 per member per month (SD $7846) at baseline to $5047 per member per month (SD $11,856) in the 90 day follow-up period. Compared with no treatment, initial 90 day costs were lower for buprenorphine/methadone [Adjusted Difference in Differences Cost Ratio (ADIDCR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.80], naltrexone (ADIDCR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.67), and behavioral health outpatient (ADIDCR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.66). Costs were higher for inpatient detox (ADIDCR 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.83). CONCLUSION: Improving health system capacity and insurance coverage and incentives for outpatient management of OUD may reduce health care costs.

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions That Simultaneously Prevent High Body Mass Index and Eating Disorders.

Eating disorders (ED) are among the top three most common debilitating illnesses in adolescent females, while high Body Mass Index (BMI) is one of the five leading modifiable risk factors for preventable disease burden. The high prevalence of eating and weight-related problems in adolescence is of great concern, particularly since this is a period of rapid growth and development. Here, we comment on the current evidence for the prevention of EDs and high BMI and the importance of assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions that integrate the prevention of EDs and high BMI in this population. There is evidence that there are effective interventions targeted at children, adolescents and young adults that can reduce the prevalence of risk factors associated with the development of EDs and high BMI concurrently. However, optimal decision-making for the health of younger generations involves considering the value for money of these effective interventions. Further research investigating the cost-effectiveness of potent and sustainable integrated preventive interventions for EDs and high BMI will provide decision makers with the necessary information to inform investment choices.

Efficacy of a short-term residential smoking cessation therapy versus standard outpatient group therapy ('START-Study'): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, evidence-based outpatient smoking cessation therapies are widely available. Long-term abstinence rates, however, are limited. Studies suggest that short-term residential therapy enables a higher level of environmental control, more intense contact and greater support among patients and from therapists, which could result in higher abstinence rates. The aim of the current START-study is to investigate the long-term efficacy of a short-term residential therapy exclusively for smoking cessation, conducted by a mobile team of expert therapists. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is conducted to examine the efficacy of residential behavior therapeutic smoking cessation therapy compared to standard outpatient behavior therapeutic smoking cessation group therapy. Adult smokers consuming 10 or more cigarettes per day, who are willing to stop smoking, are randomized in a ratio of 1:1 between therapy groups. The primary endpoint is sustained abstinence for 6-month and 12-month periods. Secondary endpoints include smoking status after therapy, 7-day point abstinence after the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups, level of physical dependence, cost-effectiveness, use of nicotine replacement products, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy expectation for tobacco abstinence, motivational and volitional determinants of behavior change, self-reported depressive symptom severity, adverse events and possible side effects. Assessments will take place at baseline, post-therapy, and at 6-month and 12-month intervals after smoking cessation. DISCUSSION: There is a high demand for long-term effective smoking cessation therapies. This study represents the first prospective RCT to examine the long-term efficacy of a residential smoking cessation therapy program compared to standard outpatient group therapy as an active control condition. The residential therapeutic concept may serve as a new model to substantially enhance future cessation therapies and improve the understanding of therapeutic impact factors on tobacco abstinence. Utilizing a mobile team, the model could be applied efficiently to medical centers that do not have permanent and trained personnel for smoking cessation at their disposal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Register for Clinical Trials (Deutsches Register für Klinische Studien), DRKS00013466. Retrospectively registered on 1 April 2019. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=start.

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.

Going Once, Going Twice: Using Willingness-to-Accept Auctions to Promote Smoking Cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Incentive-based smoking cessation interventions increase quit rates. The optimal incentive, however, is unknown. We used a willingness-to-accept (WTA) auction where smokers submitted bids indicating the incentive they would need to receive for 1 week of smoking cessation. AIMS AND METHODS: Smokers ready to quit (n = 35) participated in a WTA auction, naming the amount they needed to be paid to quit for 1 week. Auction winners received an incentive if they successfully quit. All smokers received nicotine replacement therapy and self-help cessation materials. Carbon monoxide concentrations were monitored remotely three times during the week and in person at the final session. RESULTS: Participants who smoked their first cigarette within 5 min of waking demanded a significantly larger incentive in exchange for quitting than those who waited (p < .05). About 45% of auction winners quit smoking compared to 20% of nonwinners (p < .05). The cost per quit was $466 among auction winners compared to $894 among nonwinners. CONCLUSIONS: WTA auctions may be an effective way to determine the amount smokers need to be paid to quit, which would allow researchers to estimate the most cost-effective payment to offer as part of incentive-based smoking cessation programs. Replication evaluating longer-term cessation outcomes with larger samples is warranted. IMPLICATIONS: Incentive-based smoking cessation interventions increase quit rates. However, the optimal incentive is unknown. We found that a WTA auction is a feasible technique for estimating the amount smokers need to be paid to quit. Incentives are a surprisingly cost-effective way to facilitate smoking cessation because they are only paid to those who successfully quit. WTA auctions are a promising tool for determining the incentive that strikes the optimal balance between being large enough to motivate cessation, but small enough that it can be offered to the largest possible population of smokers for a given program budget.

Behavioral Therapy Preferences in People With Migraine.

BACKGROUND: There are safe and well-tolerated level A evidence-based behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine. They are biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation. However, the behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine are underutilized. OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine whether people with migraine with 4 or more headache days a month had preferences regarding the type of delivery of the behavioral therapy (in-person, smartphone based, telephone) and whether they would be willing to pay for in-person behavioral therapy. We also sought to determine the predictors of likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional study design, we developed an online survey using TurkPrime, an online survey platform, to assess how likely TurkPrime participants who screened positive for migraine using the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention screen were to pursue different delivery methods of the behavioral therapy. We report descriptive statistics and quantitative analyses. RESULTS: There were 401 participants. Median age was 34 [IQR: 29, 41] years. More than two thirds of participants (70.3%, 282/401) were women. Median number of headache days/ month was 5 [IQR: 2.83, 8.5]. Some (12.5%, 50/401) used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. The participants reported that they were "somewhat likely" to pursue in-person or smartphone behavioral therapy and behavioral therapy covered by insurance but were neutral about pursuing the telephone-based behavioral therapy. Participants were "not very likely" to pay out of pocket for the behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability as measured by the MIDAS grading score was associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy in-person (P = .004), via telephone (P = .015), and via smart phone (P < .001), and covered by insurance (P = .001). However, migraine-related disability was not associated with likelihood to pursue out of pocket (P = .769) behavioral therapy. Pain intensity was predictive of likelihood of pursuing the behavioral therapy for migraine when covered by insurance. Other factors including education, employment, and headache days were not predictors. CONCLUSION: People with migraine prefer in-person and smartphone-based behavioral therapy to telephone-based behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability is associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy (independent of type of delivery of the behavioral therapy-in-person, telephone based or smartphone based). However, participants were not very likely to pay for the behavioral therapy.