Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study of a psychoeducational group intervention for people with depression and physical comorbidity in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a psychoeducational group intervention led by primary care (PC) nurses in relation to customary care to prevent the depression and improve quality of life in patients with physical comorbidity. DESIGN: Economic evaluation based on data from randomized, multicenter clinical trial with blind response variables and a one-year follow-up, carried in the context of the PSICODEP study. LOCATION: 7 PC teams from Catalonia. PARTICIPANTS: >50 year-old patients with depression and some physical comorbidity: diabetes mellitus type 2, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or asthma. INTERVENTION: 12 psychoeducational group sessions, 1 per week, led by 2 PC nurses with prior training. MEASUREMENTS: Effectiveness: depression-free days (DFD) calculated from the BDI-II and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the Euroqol-5D. Direct costs: PC visits, mental health, emergencies and hospitalizations, drugs. Indirect costs: days of temporary disability (TD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), cost-effectiveness (ΔCost/ΔDLD) and cost-utility (ΔCost/ΔQALY) were estimated. RESULTS: The study includes 380 patients (intervention group [IG] = 204; control group [CG] = 176). 81.6% women; mean age 68.4 (SD = 8.8). The IG had a higher mean cost of visits, less of hospitalizations and less TD than the CG. The difference in costs between the IG and the CG was -357.95€ (95% CI: -2026.96 to 1311.06) at one year of follow-up. There was a mean of 11.95 (95% CI: -15.98 to 39.88) more DFD in the IG than in the CG. QALYs were similar (difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05). The ICERs were 29.95€/DLD and 35,795€/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Psychoeducational intervention is associated with an improvement in DFD, as well as a reduction in costs at 12 months, although not significantly. QALYs were very similar between groups.

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.

Low-Intensity Guided Help Through Mindfulness (LIGHTMIND): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing supported mindfulness-based cognitive therapy self-help to supported cognitive behavioural therapy self-help for adults experiencing depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression has serious personal, family and economic consequences. It is estimated that it will cost £12.15 billion to the economy each year in England by 2026. Improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) is the National Health Service talking therapies service in England for adults experiencing anxiety or depression. Over 1 million people are referred to IAPT every year, over half experiencing depression. Where symptoms of depression are mild to moderate, people are typically offered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help (CBT-SH) supported by a psychological well-being practitioner. The problem is that over half of people who complete treatment for depression in IAPT remain depressed despite receiving National Institute of Health and Care Excellent recommended treatment. Furthermore, less than half of IAPT service users complete treatment. This study seeks to investigate the effectiveness of an alternative to CBT-SH. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) differs from CBT in focus, approach and practice, and may be more effective with a higher number of treatment completions. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing supported MBCT self-help (MBCT-SH) with CBT-SH for adults experiencing mild to moderate depression being treated in IAPT services. We will recruit 410 participants experiencing mild to moderate depression from IAPT services and randomise these to receive either an MBCT-based self-help workbook or a CBT-based self-help workbook. Participants will be asked to complete their workbook within 16 weeks, with six support sessions with a psychological well-being practitioner. The primary outcome is depression symptom severity on treatment completion. Secondary outcomes are treatment completion rates and measures of generalized anxiety, well-being, functioning and mindfulness. An exploratory non-inferiority analysis will be conducted in the event the primary hypothesis is not supported. A semi-structured interview with participants will guide understanding of change processes. DISCUSSION: If the findings from this randomised controlled trial demonstrate that MBCT-SH is more effective than CBT-SH for adults experiencing depression, this will provide evidence for policy makers and lead to changes to clinical practice in IAPT services, leading to greater choice of self-help treatment options and better outcomes for service users. If the exploratory non-inferiority analysis is conducted and this indicates non-inferiority of MBCT-SH in comparison to CBT-SH this will also be of interest to policy makers when seeking to increase service user choice of self-help treatment options for depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trial registration number: ISRCTN 13495752. Registered on 31 August 2017 (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13495752).

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.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group support psychotherapy delivered by trained lay health workers for depression treatment among people with HIV in Uganda: a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends the use of psychological interventions as first-line treatment for depression in low-income and middle-income countries. However, evaluations of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such interventions among people with HIV are scarce. Our aim was to establish the effectiveness of group support psychotherapy (GSP) delivered by lay health workers for depression treatment among people living with HIV in a rural area of Uganda on a large scale. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, we included 30 health centres offering HIV care. These were randomly assigned to deliver either GSP or group HIV education (GHE). Randomisation, in a ratio of 1:1, was achieved by health centre managers separately picking a paper containing the intervention allocation from a basket. Participants were people living with HIV, aged 19 years and older, with mild to moderate major depression assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview depression module, taking antiretroviral therapy, and antidepressant-naive. Group sessions were led by trained lay health workers once a week for 8 weeks. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants with major depression and function scores at 6 months post-treatment, analysed by intention to treat by means of multilevel random effect regression analyses adjusting for clustering in health centres. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR201608001738234. FINDINGS: Between Sept 13 and Dec 15, 2016, we assessed 1473 individuals, of whom 1140 were recruited from health centres offering GSP (n=578 [51%]) or GHE (n=562 [49%]). Two (<1%) participants in the GSP group were diagnosed with major depression 6 months post-treatment compared with 160 (28%) in the GHE group (adjusted odds ratio=0·01, 95% CI 0·003-0·012, p<0·0001). The mean function scores 6 months post-treatment were 9·85 (SD 0·76) in the GSP group and 6·83 (2·85) in the GHE group (ß=4·12; 95% CI 3·75-4·49, p<0·0001). 36 individuals had 63 serious adverse events, which included 25 suicide attempts and 22 hospital admissions for medical complications. The outcomes of these serious adverse events included 16 deaths, 4 of which were completed suicides (GSP=2; GHE=2), and 12 of which were HIV-related medical complications (GSP=8; GHE=4). Cost-effectiveness estimates showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$13·0 per disability-adjusted life-year averted, which can be considered very cost-effective in Uganda. INTERPRETATION: Integration of cost-effective psychological treatments such as group support psychotherapy into existing HIV interventions might improve the mental health of people living with HIV. FUNDING: MQ Transforming Mental Health and Grand Challenges Canada.

Economic evaluation of mindfulness group therapy for patients with depression, anxiety, stress and adjustment disorders compared with treatment as usual.

BACKGROUND: A randomised controlled trial found that a structured mindfulness group therapy (MGT) programme was as effective as treatment as usual (mostly cognitive-behavioural therapy) for patients with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or stress and adjustment disorders in Sweden (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01476371). AIMS: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of MGT compared with treatment as usual from both a healthcare and a societal perspective for the trial duration (8 weeks). METHOD: The costs from a healthcare perspective included treatment as usual, medication and costs for providing MGT. The societal perspective included costs from the healthcare perspective plus savings from productivity gains for the trial duration. The effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and the UK value set. Uncertainty surrounding the incremental costs and effects were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications and presented with 95% confidence intervals and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The MGT group had significantly lower healthcare and societal costs (mean differences -€115 (95% CI -193 to -36) and -€112 (95% CI -207 to -17), respectively) compared with the control group. In terms of effectiveness, there was no significant difference in QALY gain (mean difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.0076 to 0.0012) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: MGT is a cost-saving alternative to treatment as usual over the trial duration from both a healthcare and a societal perspective for patients with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or stress and adjustment disorders in Sweden.

Economic costs of implementing group interventions to reduce diabetes distress in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the T1-REDEEM trial.

AIMS: This study evaluated the implementation costs of two group interventions, one focused on diabetes education (KnowIt) and one focused directly on diabetes distress (OnTrack), that reduced diabetes distress and HbA1C in adults with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes (T1DM) in the T1-REDEEM trial. METHODS: Resources used to provide interventions were enumerated using activity-based micro-costing methods. Costs were assigned to resources in 2017 US dollars. US median wage and benefit rates were used to calculate costs of staff time. Cost per unit change was calculated for diabetes distress and HbA1C. RESULTS: For both interventions, per participant implementation costs were approximately $250 and cost per 1.0 percentage point (11 mmol/mol) change in HbA1C was $1400. Cost per unit change in diabetes distress was $364 for KnowIt and $335 for OnTrack. No statistically significant differences in costs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the costs of implementing interventions targeting diabetes distress in the context of T1DM. Both interventions had per participant implementation costs in the lower end of the range of previously examined diabetes self-management interventions ($219 to $5390). These inventions and their costs merit further attention because reducing diabetes distress may impact long term T1DM outcomes. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02175732.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18-69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization. RESULTS: We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: -2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient's everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of individual versus group female-specific cognitive behavioral therapy for alcohol use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of individual female-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (I-FS-CBT) versus group female-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (G-FS-CBT). METHODS: This cost-effectiveness study is based on a randomized controlled trial in which 155 women seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder at an academic outpatient clinic were randomized to 12 manual-guided sessions of I-FS-CBT (n = 75) or G-FS-CBT (n = 80). The primary patient outcomes were the number of drinking days and the number of heavy drinking days during the 12-week treatment and 1-year follow-up periods. All cost data (including resource utilizations) were collected prospectively alongside the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to determine the cost-effectiveness of I-FS-CBT relative to G-FS-CBT. Results are presented from the provider perspective. RESULTS: During the 12-week treatment period, G-FS-CBT is likely to be cost-effective when the threshold value to decision-makers of one fewer drinking day (or one fewer day of heavy drinking) is less than $141 (or $258), and I-FS-CBT is likely to be cost-effective if the threshold is greater than $141 (or $258). During the 1-year follow-up period, G-FS-CBT is likely to be cost-effective when the threshold value to decision-makers of one fewer drinking day (or one fewer day of heavy drinking) is less than $54 (or $169), and I-FS-CBT is likely to be cost-effective if the threshold is greater than $54 (or $169). The results are robust to sensitivity analyses on several key cost parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to I-FS-CBT, G-FS-CBT holds promise as a cost-effective approach, in both the short run and the long run, for improving drinking outcomes of women with alcohol use disorder.

Randomized cost-effectiveness trial of group interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for prisoners with major depression.

OBJECTIVE: This study tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for major depressive disorder (MDD) among prisoners. It is the first fully powered randomized trial of any treatment (pharmacological or psychosocial) targeting MDD among incarcerated individuals. METHOD: One hundred eighty-one male (n = 117) and female (n = 64) prisoners from prison facilities in 2 states were randomized to group IPT (delivered by master's-level and nonspecialist prison counselors) for MDD plus prison treatment as usual (TAU) or to TAU alone. Participants' average age was 39 (range = 20-61); 20% were African American and 19% were Hispanic. Outcomes assessed at posttreatment and 3-month follow-up included depressive symptoms (primary; assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression), suicidality (assessed with the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation and Beck Hopelessness Scale), in-prison functioning (i.e., enrollment in correctional programs; discipline reports; aggression/victimization; and social support), remission from MDD, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. RESULTS: IPT reduced depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and increased rates of MDD remission relative to prison TAU alone. Effects on hopelessness were particularly strong. Cost per patient was $2,054 including costs for IPT training and supervision or $575 without these costs. For providers running their second or subsequent IPT group, cost per additional week in remission from MDD (relative to TAU alone) was $524 ($148 excluding training and supervision costs, which would not be needed for established programs). CONCLUSIONS: IPT is effective and cost-effective and we recommend its use for MDD among prisoners. It is currently the only treatment for MDD evaluated among incarcerated individuals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Group schema-focused therapy enriched with psychomotor therapy versus treatment as usual for older adults with cluster B and/or C personality disorders: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Several types of psychotherapy have been proven successful in the treatment of personality disorders in younger age groups, however studies among older patients are lacking. We developed a group schema-focused therapy (SFT) enriched with psychomotor therapy (PMT) for older adults with cluster B and/or C personality disorders. This paper describes the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We will evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of this therapy protocol in specialized mental health care. We hypothesize that our treatment program is cost-effective and superior to treatment as usual (TAU) in reducing psychological distress and improving quality of life in older adults treated to specialized mental healthcare. METHODS: A multicenter RCT with a one-year follow-up comparing group schema-focused therapy enriched with psychomotor therapy (group SFT + PMT) and TAU for adults aged 60 years and older who suffer from either a cluster B and/or C personality disorder. The primary outcome is general psychological distress measured with the 53-item Brief Symptom Inventory. Secondary outcomes are the Schema Mode Inventory (118-item version) and the Young Schema Questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective with the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire and structured cost-interviews. DISCUSSION: This study will add to the knowledge of psychotherapy in later life. The study specifically contributes to the evidence on (cost-) effectiveness of group SFT enriched with PMT adapted to the needs of for older adults with cluster b and/or c personality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR 6621 . Registered on 20 August 2017.

Economic evaluation of stepped care for the management of childhood anxiety disorders: Results from a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Stepped care has been promoted for the management of mental disorders; however, there is no empirical evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of this approach for the treatment of anxiety disorders in youth. METHOD: This economic evaluation was conducted within a randomised controlled trial comparing stepped care to a validated, manualised treatment in 281 young people, aged 7-17, with a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Intervention costs were determined from therapist records. Administrative data on medication and medical service use were used to determine additional health care costs during the study period. Parents also completed a resource use questionnaire to collect medications, services not captured in administrative data and parental lost productivity. Outcomes included participant-completed quality of life, Child Health Utility - nine-dimension and parent-completed Assessment of Quality of Life - eight-dimension to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years were compared between groups at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Intervention delivery costs were significantly less for stepped care from the societal perspective (mean difference -$198, 95% confidence interval -$353 to -$19). Total combined costs were less for stepped care from both societal (-$1334, 95% confidence interval -$2386 to $510) and health sector (-$563, 95% confidence interval -$1353 to $643) perspectives but did not differ significantly from the manualised treatment. Youth and parental quality-adjusted life years were not significantly different between groups. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust. CONCLUSION: For youth with anxiety, this three-step model provided comparable outcomes and total health sector costs to a validated face-to-face programme. However, it was less costly to deliver from a societal perspective, making it an attractive option for some parents. Future economic evaluations comparing various models of stepped care to treatment as usual are recommended.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In primary and secondary care medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) or functional somatic syndromes (FSS) constitute a major burden for patients and society with high healthcare costs and societal costs. Objectives were to provide an overview of the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of interventions for MUS or FSS, and to assess the quality of these studies. METHODS: We searched the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) and the CEA registry to conduct a systematic review. Articles with full economic evaluations on interventions focusing on adult patients with undifferentiated MUS or fibromyalgia (FM), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), with no restrictions on comparators, published until 15 June 2018, were included. We excluded preventive interventions. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and cost-effectiveness data and used the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Checklist to appraise the methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies out of 1,613 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two studies reported costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost-utility analyses (CUAs). In 13 CUAs the intervention conditions dominated the control conditions or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the willingness-to-pay threshold of € 50,000 per QALY, meaning that the interventions were (on average) cost-effective in comparison with the control condition. Group interventions focusing on MUS (n = 3) or FM (n = 4) might be more cost-effective than individual interventions. The included studies were heterogeneous with regard to the included patients, interventions, study design, and outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review provides an overview of 39 included studies of interventions for patients with MUS and FSS and the methodological quality of these studies. Considering the limited comparability due to the heterogeneity of the studies, group interventions might be more cost-effective than individual interventions. REGISTRATION: Study methods were documented in an international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) protocol, registration number: CRD42017060424.

Design and participant characteristics of a primary care adaptation of the Look AHEAD Lifestyle Intervention for weight loss in type 2 diabetes: The REAL HEALTH-diabetes study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The REAL HEALTH -Diabetes Study is a practice-based clinical trial that adapted the Look AHEAD lifestyle intervention for implementation in primary care settings. The trial will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of in-person group lifestyle intervention, telephone group lifestyle intervention, and individual medical nutrition therapy (MNT), the current recommended standard of care in type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome is percent weight loss at 6 months with outcomes also measured at 12, 18, 24 (intervention completion), and 36 months. Here, we describe the adaptation, trial design, implementation strategies, and baseline characteristics of enrolled participants. METHODS: The study is a three-arm, patient-level, randomized trial conducted in three community health centers (CHCs) and one diabetes practice affiliated with one academic medical center. RESULTS: The study used existing clinical infrastructure to recruit participants from study sites. Strategies for successful conduct of the trial included partnering with health-center based co-investigator clinicians, engaging primary care providers, and accommodating clinical workflows. Of 248 eligible patients who attended a screening visit, 211 enrolled, with 70 randomly assigned to in-person group lifestyle intervention, 72 to telephone group lifestyle intervention, and 69 to MNT. The cohort was 55% female, 29% non-white, with mean age 62 years and mean BMI 35 kg/m2. Enrollment rates were higher at CHC sites. CONCLUSIONS: A practice-based randomized trial of a complex behavioral lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes can be implemented in community health and usual clinical settings. Participant and provider engagement was higher at local CHC sites reflecting the study implementation focus. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02320253.

Cost-utility analysis of meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors (MCGP-CS) improves meaning, psychological well-being, and mental adjustment to cancer and reduces psychological distress. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the cost-utility of MCGP-CS compared with supportive group psychotherapy (SGP) and care-as-usual (CAU). METHODS: In total, 170 patients were randomized to MCGP-CS, SGP, or CAU. Intervention costs, direct medical and nonmedical costs, productivity losses, and health-related quality of life were measured until 6 months follow-up, using the TIC-P, PRODISQ, data from the hospital information system, and the EQ-5D. The cost-utility was calculated by comparing mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Mean total costs ranged from €4492 (MCGP-CS) to €5304 (CAU). Mean QALYs ranged .507 (CAU) to .540 (MCGP-CS). MCGP-CS had a probability of 74% to be both less costly and more effective than CAU, and 49% compared with SGP. Sensitivity analyses showed these findings are robust. If society is willing to pay €0 for one gained QALY, MCGP-CS has a 78% probability of being cost-effective compared with CAU. This increases to 85% and 92% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of €10 000 and €30 000, which are commonly accepted thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: MCGP-CS is highly likely a cost-effective intervention, meaning that there is a positive balance between the costs and gains of MCGP-CS, in comparison with SGP and CAU.

Improving the effectiveness of psychological interventions for depression and anxiety in the cardiac rehabilitation pathway using group-based metacognitive therapy (PATHWAY Group MCT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are prevalent among cardiac rehabilitation patients but pharmacological and psychological treatments have limited effectiveness in this group. Furthermore, psychological interventions have not been systematically integrated into cardiac rehabilitation services despite being a strategic priority for the UK National Health Service. A promising new treatment, metacognitive therapy, may be well-suited to the needs of cardiac rehabilitation patients and has the potential to improve outcomes. It is based on the metacognitive model, which proposes that a thinking style dominated by rumination, worry and threat monitoring maintains emotional distress. Metacognitive therapy is highly effective at reducing this thinking style and alleviating anxiety and depression in mental health settings. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group-based metacognitive therapy for cardiac rehabilitation patients with elevated anxiety and/or depressive symptoms. METHODS/DESIGN: The PATHWAY Group-MCT trial is a multicentre, two-arm, single-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of group-based metacognitive therapy plus usual cardiac rehabilitation to usual cardiac rehabilitation alone. Cardiac rehabilitation patients (target sample n = 332) with elevated anxiety and/or depressive symptoms will be recruited across five UK National Health Service Trusts. Participants randomised to the intervention arm will receive six weekly sessions of group-based metacognitive therapy delivered by either cardiac rehabilitation professionals or research nurses. The intervention and control groups will both be offered the usual cardiac rehabilitation programme within their Trust. The primary outcome is severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total score. Secondary outcomes are severity of anxiety/depression at 12-month follow-up, health-related quality of life, severity of post-traumatic stress symptoms and strength of metacognitive beliefs at 4- and 12-month follow-up. Qualitative interviews will help to develop an account of barriers and enablers to the effectiveness of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This trial will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group-based metacognitive therapy in alleviating anxiety and depression in cardiac rehabilitation patients. The therapy, if effective, offers the potential to improve psychological wellbeing and quality of life in this large group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Trials Gateway, ISRCTN74643496 , Registered on 8 April 2015.

Borrowing Benefits: Group Treatment With Clinical Emotional Freedom Techniques Is Associated With Simultaneous Reductions in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Anxiety, and Depression Symptoms.

Clinical Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is an evidence-based treatment for depression and anxiety. The current study sought to elucidate the relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety in a nonclinical population. The sample (N = 81) comprised participants at five 2-day EFT workshops. All groups used an EFT protocol called Borrowing Benefits, in which the group facilitator works with a single client while other participants self-apply EFT. Participants were assessed on 9 specific conditions as well as on the breadth (Positive Symptom Total [PST]) and depth (General Symptom Index [GSI]) of psychological distress. Physical pain and addictive cravings were also assessed. Significant reductions were observed in all measures (P < .03). Associations between PST, GSI, and PTSD were significant (P < .026). Participants maintained all gains at 6-month follow-up (P < .02) with the exception of the Hostility subscale, while Cohen's d = 0.54 indicated a moderate treatment effect for PTSD. The relationship between psychological and physiological conditions identified in this study is consistent with that found in other studies. Group treatment is cost-effective and efficient, and the efficacy of EFT in groups indicates the utility of the Borrowing Benefits technique.

Cost-Effectiveness of Internet-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Bulimia Nervosa: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa (CBT-BN) compared to face-to-face delivery of CBT-BN. METHODS: This study is a planned secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. Participants were 179 adults (98% female, mean age = 28 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for bulimia nervosa who were randomized to group face-to-face or group Internet-based CBT-BN for 16 sessions during 20 weeks. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a third-party payor perspective, and a partial societal perspective analysis was conducted to investigate cost-utility (ie, cost per gain in quality-adjusted life-years) and patient out-of-pocket travel-related costs. Net health care costs were calculated from protocol and nonprotocol health care services using third-party payor cost estimates. The primary outcome measure in the clinical trial was abstinence from binge eating and purging, and the trial start and end dates were 2008 and 2016. RESULTS: The mean cost per abstinent patient at posttreatment was $7,757 (95% confidence limit [CL], $4,515, $13,361) for face-to-face and $11,870 (95% CL, $6,486, $22,188) for Internet-based CBT-BN, and at 1-year follow-up was $16,777 (95% CL, $10,298, $27,042) for face-to-face and $14,561 (95% CL, $10,165, $21,028) for Internet-based CBT-BN. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms in cost-effectiveness or cost-utility at posttreatment or 1-year follow-up. Out-of-pocket patient costs were significantly higher for face-to-face (mean [95% CL] = $178 [$127, $140]) than Internet-based ($50 [$50, $50]) therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Third-party payor cost-effectiveness of Internet-based CBT-BN is comparable with that of an accepted standard. Internet-based dissemination of CBT-BN may be a viable alternative for patients geographically distant from specialist eating disorder services who have an unmet need for treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00877786​.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process (LP) in addition to specialist medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone, for children with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalitis (ME). DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled open trial. Participants were randomly assigned to SMC or SMC+LP. Randomisation was minimised by age and gender. SETTING: Specialist paediatric CFS/ME service. PATIENTS: 12-18 year olds with mild/moderate CFS/ME. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Function Subscale (SF-36-PFS) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pain, anxiety, depression, school attendance and cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: We recruited 100 participants, of whom 51 were randomised to SMC+LP. Data from 81 participants were analysed at 6 months. Physical function (SF-36-PFS) was better in those allocated SMC+LP (adjusted difference in means 12.5(95% CI 4.5 to 20.5), p=0.003) and this improved further at 12 months (15.1 (5.8 to 24.4), p=0.002). At 6 months, fatigue and anxiety were reduced, and at 12 months, fatigue, anxiety, depression and school attendance had improved in the SMC+LP arm. Results were similar following multiple imputation. SMC+LP was probably more cost-effective in the multiple imputation dataset (difference in means in net monetary benefit at 12 months £1474(95% CI £111 to £2836), p=0.034) but not for complete cases. CONCLUSION: The LP is effective and is probably cost-effective when provided in addition to SMC for mild/moderately affected adolescents with CFS/ME. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81456207.

Evaluating effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group psychological intervention using cognitive behavioural strategies for women with common mental disorders in conflict-affected rural Pakistan: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of humanitarian disasters upon mental health is well recognised. The evidence for psychological interventions for mental health is mounting, but few interventions have been rigorously tested in humanitarian settings. To be sustainable in humanitarian settings interventions need to be short, simple, deliverable by nonspecialists under supervision, and adopt a transdiagnostic approach where an array of mental health outcomes are addressed simultaneously. These elements have been incorporated into the newly developed WHO Problem Management Plus (PM+) Group intervention. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the locally adapted PM+ Group intervention for women in Swat, Pakistan. METHODS: This PM+ Group trial is a two-arm, single-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community-based setting with women in rural Pakistan. PM+ is delivered in partnership with the Lady Health Worker (LHW) Programme which provides community-based health care to women in Pakistan. Thirty-four LHW clusters will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation ratio using a permuted-block randomisation method. Participants screened and found to meet the inclusion criteria will be allocated to either the PM+ intervention group (n = 306), or the control arm (n = 306). The manualised PM+ intervention involves five sessions, each lasting 3 h, and introduces four strategies applied by participants to problems that they are facing. It is delivered by local female facilitators with a minimum of 16 years of education who are provided with targeted training and supervision. The primary outcome is individual psychological distress, measured by levels of anxiety and depression on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 20 weeks after baseline. Secondary outcomes include major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, levels of social support, levels of functioning, and economic effectiveness. Intervention acceptability will be explored through an embedded qualitative study. DISCUSSION: The PM+ Group trial will provide important evidence on the effectiveness of an empirically supported psychological treatment delivered by nonspecialists in a humanitarian setting. If proven effective, the qualitative component will inform strategies for PM+ Group scale-up in health systems in other humanitarian settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, identifier: ACTRN12616000037404. Registered on 19 January 2016; WHO Protocol ID RPC705, v.4, 2 November 2015.