Cost-effectiveness analysis of parenting interventions for the prevention of behaviour problems in children.

BACKGROUND: Behavior problems are common among children and place a high disease and financial burden on individuals and society. Parenting interventions are commonly used to prevent such problems, but little is known about their possible longer-term economic benefits. This study modelled the longer-term cost-effectiveness of five parenting interventions delivered in a Swedish context: Comet, Connect, the Incredible Years (IY), COPE, bibliotherapy, and a waitlist control, for the prevention of persistent behavior problems. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed and used to forecast the cost per averted disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) by each parenting intervention and the waitlist control, for children aged 5-12 years. Age-specific cohorts were modelled until the age of 18. Educational and health care sector costs related to behavior problems were included. Active interventions were compared to the waitlist control as well as to each other. RESULTS: Intervention costs ranged between US$ 14 (bibliotherapy) to US$ 1,300 (IY) per child, with effects of up to 0.23 averted DALYs per child (IY). All parenting interventions were cost-effective at a threshold of US$ 15,000 per DALY in relation to the waitlist control. COPE and bibliotherapy strongly dominated the other options, and an additional US$ 2,629 would have to be invested in COPE to avert one extra DALY, in comparison to bibliotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Parenting interventions are cost-effective in the longer run in comparison to a waitlist control. Bibliotherapy or COPE are the most efficient options when comparing interventions to one another. Optimal decision for investment should to be based on budget considerations and priority settings.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of Internet-Delivered Exposure Therapy for Fibromyalgia: Results From a Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a prevalent and debilitating chronic pain disorder associated with a substantial economic burden. Although there are several studies investigating the effectiveness of psychological treatments such as cognitive-behavioral therapy for FM, studies on cost-effectiveness are scarce. The aim of the present study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of Internet-delivered exposure therapy (iExp) for FM. We used health economic data from a recently conducted randomized, controlled trial, where 140 participants were randomized to either iExp or a waitlist control (WLC) condition. Economic data were collected at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at the 1-year follow-up. Treatment effectiveness in relation to costs were analyzed using both a societal perspective (including all direct and indirect costs) and a health care unit perspective (including only the direct treatment costs). Bootstrapped net benefit regression analyses were also conducted, comparing the difference in costs and effects between iExp and WLC, within different willingness-to-pay scenarios. Results showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -$15,295, indicating that iExp was highly cost-effective as each successfully treated case (treatment responder) was associated with a substantial net reduction in costs. The robustness of the results was tested in 2 different sensitivity analyses, where iExp remained cost-effective, even in a willingness-to-pay-scenario of $0. We conclude that iExp is a cost-effective treatment that generates large societal cost savings. PERSPECTIVE: Health-economic evaluations of psychological interventions for FM are scarce. This study is a cost-effectiveness analysis of Internet-delivered exposure therapy for patients with FM. Results showed that iExp was highly cost-effective compared with no treatment, where each successfully treated case generated a substantial societal cost saving.

Evaluation of a practice team-supported exposure training for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in primary care - study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder and agoraphobia are debilitating and frequently comorbid anxiety disorders. A large number of patients with these conditions are treated by general practitioners in primary care. Cognitive behavioural exposure exercises have been shown to be effective in reducing anxiety symptoms. Practice team-based case management can improve clinical outcomes for patients with chronic diseases in primary care. The present study compares a practice team-supported, self-managed exposure programme for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in small general practices to usual care in terms of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial with a two-arm parallel group design. General practices represent the units of randomisation. General practitioners recruit adult patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia according to the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10). In the intervention group, patients receive cognitive behaviour therapy-oriented psychoeducation and instructions to self-managed exposure exercises in four manual-based appointments with the general practitioner. A trained health care assistant from the practice team delivers case management and is continuously monitoring symptoms and treatment progress in ten protocol-based telephone contacts with patients. In the control group, patients receive usual care from general practitioners. Outcomes are measured at baseline (T0), at follow-up after six months (T1), and at follow-up after twelve months (T2). The primary outcome is clinical severity of anxiety of patients as measured by the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). To detect a standardised effect size of 0.35 at T1, 222 patients from 37 general practices are included in each group. Secondary outcomes include anxiety-related clinical parameters and health-economic costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials [http://ISCRTN64669297].

Cost-effectiveness of prolonged exposure therapy versus pharmacotherapy and treatment choice in posttraumatic stress disorder (the Optimizing PTSD Treatment Trial): a doubly randomized preference trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may depend on type of treatment (eg, pharmacotherapy vs psychotherapy) and patient choice of treatment. We examined the cost-effectiveness of treatment with prolonged exposure therapy versus pharmacotherapy with sertraline, overall treatment preference, preference for choosing prolonged exposure therapy, and preference for choosing pharmacotherapy with sertraline from the US societal perspective. METHOD: Two hundred patients aged 18 to 65 years with PTSD diagnosis based on DSM-IV criteria enrolled in a doubly randomized preference trial. Patients were randomized to receive their treatment of choice (n = 97) or to be randomly assigned treatment (n = 103). In the choice arm, patients chose either prolonged exposure therapy (n = 61) or pharmacotherapy with sertraline (n = 36). In the no-choice arm, patients were randomized to either prolonged exposure therapy (n = 48) or pharmacotherapy with sertraline (n = 55). The total costs, including direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, and indirect costs, were estimated in 2012 US dollars; and total quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was assessed using the EuroQoL Questionnaire-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument in a 12-month period. This study was conducted from July 2004 to January 2009. RESULTS: Relative to pharmacotherapy with sertraline, prolonged exposure therapy was less costly (-$262; 95% CI, -$5,068 to $4,946) and produced more QALYs (0.056; 95% CI, 0.014 to 0.100) when treatment was assigned, with 93.2% probability of being cost-effective at $100,000/QALY. Independently, giving a choice of treatment also yielded lower cost (-$1,826; 95% CI, -$4,634 to $749) and more QALYs (0.010; 95% CI, -0.019 to 0.044) over no choice of treatment, with 87.0% probability of cost-effectiveness at $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Giving PTSD patients a choice of treatment appears to be cost-effective. When choice is not possible, prolonged exposure therapy may provide a cost-effective option over pharmacotherapy with sertraline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00127673.

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

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

The development of the SWEAT questionnaire: a scale measuring costs and efforts inherent to conducting exposure sessions.

For decades, empirical studies have shown the effectiveness of exposure techniques when used in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) treatment for anxiety disorders. A few studies are now suggesting that using Virtual Reality (VR) may be an effective way to conduct exposure and overcome some of the limitations of in vivo exposure. The aim of this study is to validate the Specific Work for Exposure Applied in Therapy (SWEAT) questionnaire that measures costs and efforts required to conduct in vivo and in virtuo exposure. A total of 265 exposure sessions (in vivo = 140; in virtuo = 125) were rated by experienced psychologists. Reliability analysis revealed three main factors in the construct of the SWEAT questionnaire. Results also showed that conducting exposure in VR is less of a burden and more readily adapted to the patients' needs than in vivo.

Stepped care versus standard cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a preliminary study of efficacy and costs.

BACKGROUND: Exposure and response prevention (ERP) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is underutilized, in part because of costs and time requirements. This study extends pilot work investigating the use of a stepped care ERP administration, in which patients are first given a low-intensity, low-cost treatment and the more costly intervention is reserved for those who do not respond to the first intervention. METHODS: Thirty adults with OCD were randomized to receive stepped care ERP or standard ERP. Those receiving stepped care started with three sessions over 6 weeks of low-intensity counseling with ERP bibliotherapy; patients failing to meet strict responder criteria after 6 weeks were given the more traditional treatment of therapist-administered ERP (17 sessions twice weekly). Those receiving standard ERP received the therapist-administered ERP with no lower-intensity lead-in. RESULTS: The two treatments were equally efficacious, with 67% of stepped care completers and 50% of standard treatment completers meeting criteria for clinically significant change at posttreatment. Similarly, no differences in client satisfaction ratings were obtained between the two groups. Examination of treatment costs, however, revealed that stepped care resulted in significantly lower costs to patients and third-party payers than did standard ERP, with large effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that stepped care ERP can significantly reduce treatment costs, without evidence of diminished treatment efficacy or patient satisfaction. Additional research is needed to determine the long-term efficacy and costs of stepped care for OCD, and to examine the financial and therapeutic impact of implementing stepped care in community settings.

Stepped care for obsessive-compulsive disorder: An open trial.

This study evaluated the effectiveness and treatment costs associated with a stepped care protocol of exposure and response prevention (EX/RP) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). In the current open trial, patients (N=14) began with self-directed EX/RP and minimal therapist guidance over the course of six weeks (Step 1). During this phase of treatment, no therapist-directed exposures were conducted. Those who did not respond optimally to Step 1 went on to Step 2, which consisted of 15 sessions of twice-weekly therapist-directed exposures. Results of this study show promise for stepped care utilizing EX/RP for some patients with OCD, with a response rate of 88% and a 60% reduction on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) score among treatment completers. Significant improvements were found in Y-BOCS from pre to post-treatment for both Step 1 and Step 2 completers. Forty-five percent of participants (n=5) responded following completion of Step 1, resulting in reduced cost of treatment among these participants. All participants who responded to Step 1 maintained acute gains during the brief follow-up period. Limitations include a small sample size and high attrition rate.