Cost-effectiveness analysis of telephone cognitive-behaviour therapy for adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder
adolescent
cognitive behavioural therapies
cost-effectiveness
economic evaluation
Journal
BJPsych open
ISSN: 2056-4724
Titre abrégé: BJPsych Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101667931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
entrez:
15
2
2019
pubmed:
15
2
2019
medline:
15
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Telephone cognitive-behaviour therapy (TCBT) may be a cost-effective method for improving access to evidence-based treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in young people.AimsEconomic evaluation of TCBT compared with face-to-face CBT for OCD in young people. Randomised non-inferiority trial comparing TCBT with face-to-face CBT for 72 young people (aged 11 to 18) with a diagnosis of OCD. Cost-effectiveness at 12-month follow-up was explored in terms of the primary clinical outcome (Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, CY-BOCS) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (trial registration: ISRCTN27070832). Total health and social care costs were higher for face-to-face CBT (mean total cost £2965, s.d. = £1548) than TCBT (mean total cost £2475, s.d. = £1024) but this difference was non-significant (P = 0.118). There were no significant between-group differences in QALYs or the CY-BOCS and there was strong evidence to support the clinical non-inferiority of TCBT. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests a 74% probability that face-to-face CBT is cost-effective compared with TCBT in terms of QALYs, but the result was less clear in terms of CY-BOCS, with TCBT being the preferred option at low levels of willingness to pay and the probability of either intervention being cost-effective at higher levels of willingness to pay being around 50%. Although cost-effectiveness of TCBT was sensitive to the outcome measure used, TCBT should be considered a clinically non-inferior alternative when access to standard clinic-based CBT is limited, or when patient preference is expressed.Declaration of interestD.M.-C. reports research grants from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), the Swedish Research Council for Health, working life and welfare (Forte), the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), as well as royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health and Elsevier, all unrelated to the submitted work.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Telephone cognitive-behaviour therapy (TCBT) may be a cost-effective method for improving access to evidence-based treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in young people.AimsEconomic evaluation of TCBT compared with face-to-face CBT for OCD in young people.
METHOD
METHODS
Randomised non-inferiority trial comparing TCBT with face-to-face CBT for 72 young people (aged 11 to 18) with a diagnosis of OCD. Cost-effectiveness at 12-month follow-up was explored in terms of the primary clinical outcome (Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, CY-BOCS) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (trial registration: ISRCTN27070832).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Total health and social care costs were higher for face-to-face CBT (mean total cost £2965, s.d. = £1548) than TCBT (mean total cost £2475, s.d. = £1024) but this difference was non-significant (P = 0.118). There were no significant between-group differences in QALYs or the CY-BOCS and there was strong evidence to support the clinical non-inferiority of TCBT. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests a 74% probability that face-to-face CBT is cost-effective compared with TCBT in terms of QALYs, but the result was less clear in terms of CY-BOCS, with TCBT being the preferred option at low levels of willingness to pay and the probability of either intervention being cost-effective at higher levels of willingness to pay being around 50%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although cost-effectiveness of TCBT was sensitive to the outcome measure used, TCBT should be considered a clinically non-inferior alternative when access to standard clinic-based CBT is limited, or when patient preference is expressed.Declaration of interestD.M.-C. reports research grants from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), the Swedish Research Council for Health, working life and welfare (Forte), the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), as well as royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health and Elsevier, all unrelated to the submitted work.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30762502
pii: S205647241800073X
doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.73
pmc: PMC6343121
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e7Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/N001400/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Br J Psychiatry. 2007 Dec;191:521-7
pubmed: 18055956
Med Interface. 1995 Apr;8(4):102-9
pubmed: 10141765
World Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;15(1):80-1
pubmed: 26833615
BMJ. 2006 Apr 29;332(7548):1030-2
pubmed: 16644834
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD004856
pubmed: 17054218
BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):883
pubmed: 16935946
Behav Cogn Psychother. 2009 Jul;37(4):469-74
pubmed: 19545482
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008 May;49(5):489-98
pubmed: 18400058
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008 May;47(5):593-602
pubmed: 18356758
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;53(12):1298-1307.e2
pubmed: 25457928
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e42916
pubmed: 23028436
Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2005 Sep;10(3):143-144
pubmed: 32806851
Health Econ. 1998 Dec;7(8):723-40
pubmed: 9890333
Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
pubmed: 9566468
BMJ Open. 2017 May 17;7(5):e015246
pubmed: 28515196
Health Econ. 2001 Mar;10(2):179-84
pubmed: 11252048
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(33):iii, xi-xiv, 1-168
pubmed: 16959169
Health Policy. 1996 Jul;37(1):53-72
pubmed: 10158943
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;187:106-8
pubmed: 16055820
Cogn Behav Ther. 2003;32(1):13-25
pubmed: 16291531
Eur Psychiatry. 2006 Mar;21(2):75-80
pubmed: 16360307
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008 Jan;117(1):57-66
pubmed: 18005369
Health Econ. 2013 Jan;22(1):22-34
pubmed: 22109960
Br J Psychiatry. 2007 Nov;191:436-40
pubmed: 17978324
Br J Psychiatry. 2001 Oct;179:324-9
pubmed: 11581112
J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2003;13 Suppl 1:S61-9
pubmed: 12880501
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997 Jun;36(6):844-52
pubmed: 9183141
J Ment Health. 2013 Apr;22(2):101-10
pubmed: 23574502
Br J Psychiatry. 2014 Jan;204(1):77-8
pubmed: 24262813
Behav Res Ther. 2009 Nov;47(11):910-20
pubmed: 19647230