IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259493.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive-behavioural therapy (bCBT) versus face-to-face CBT (ftfCBT) for anxiety disorders in specialised mental health care: A 15-week randomised controlled trial with 1-year follow-up

Author

Listed:
  • Geke Romijn
  • Neeltje Batelaan
  • Jeroen Koning
  • Anton van Balkom
  • Aart de Leeuw
  • Friederike Benning
  • Leona Hakkaart van Roijen
  • Heleen Riper

Abstract

Background: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent and cause substantial economic burden. Blended cognitive-behavioural therapy (bCBT), which integrates Internet-based CBT and face-to-face CBT (ftfCBT), is an attractive and potentially cost-saving treatment alternative to conventional CBT for patients with anxiety disorders in specialised mental health care. However, little is known about the effectiveness of bCBT in routine care. We examined the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bCBT versus ftfCBT in outpatient specialised care to patients with panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder. Methods and findings: Patients with anxiety disorders were randomised to bCBT (n = 52) or ftfCBT (n = 62). Acceptability of bCBT and ftfCBT were evaluated by assessing treatment preference, adherence, satisfaction and therapeutic alliance. Costs and effects were assessed at post-treatment and one-year follow-up. Primary outcome measure was the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, general psychopathology, work and social adjustment, quality of life and mastery. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed from societal and healthcare perspectives by calculating the incremental costs per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY). No significant differences between bCBT and ftfCBT were found on acceptability or effectiveness measures at post-treatment (Cohen’s d between-group effect size on BAI = 0.15, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.60) or at one-year follow-up (d = −0.38, 95% CI −0.84 to 0.09). The modelled point estimates of societal costs (bCBT €10945, ftfCBT €10937) were higher and modelled point estimates of direct medical costs (bCBT €3748, ftfCBT €3841) were lower in bCBT. The acceptability curves showed that bCBT was expected to be a cost-effective intervention. Results should be carefully interpreted due to the small sample size. Conclusions: bCBT appears an acceptable, clinically effective and potentially cost-saving alternative option for treating patients with anxiety disorders. Trials with larger samples are needed to further investigate cost-effectiveness. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4912.

Suggested Citation

  • Geke Romijn & Neeltje Batelaan & Jeroen Koning & Anton van Balkom & Aart de Leeuw & Friederike Benning & Leona Hakkaart van Roijen & Heleen Riper, 2021. "Acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive-behavioural therapy (bCBT) versus face-to-face CBT (ftfCBT) for anxiety disorders in specialised mental health care: A 15-week ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259493
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259493
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259493&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259493?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marieke Krol & Jocé Papenburg & Marc Koopmanschap & Werner Brouwer, 2011. "Do Productivity Costs Matter?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 601-619, July.
    2. Janet MacNeil Vroomen & Iris Eekhout & Marcel G. Dijkgraaf & Hein van Hout & Sophia E. de Rooij & Martijn W. Heymans & Judith E. Bosmans, 2016. "Multiple imputation strategies for zero-inflated cost data in economic evaluations: which method works best?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 939-950, November.
    3. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629, Decembrie.
    4. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Munir Khan & Aimee Maxwell, 2014. "Validity and Reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(1), pages 85-96, March.
    5. Rita Faria & Manuel Gomes & David Epstein & Ian White, 2014. "A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1157-1170, December.
    6. Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Rutten, Frans F. H. & van Ineveld, B. Martin & van Roijen, Leona, 1995. "The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 171-189, June.
    7. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 189-198, March.
    8. De Brey, Henk, 1983. "A cross-national validation of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire: The Dutch experience," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 395-400, January.
    9. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 2)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 287-296, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Hanly, Paul & Ortega Ortega, Marta & Pearce, Alison & Soerjomataram, Isabelle & Sharp, Linda, 2020. "Advances in the methodological approach to friction period estimation: A European perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    3. Paul Hanly & Rebecca Maguire & Frances Drummond & Linda Sharp, 2019. "Variation in the methodological approach to productivity cost valuation: the case of prostate cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(9), pages 1399-1408, December.
    4. Mennini, Francesco Saverio & Gitto, Lara, 2022. "Approaches to Estimating Indirect Costs in Healthcare: Motivations for Choice," MPRA Paper 112129, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Marieke Krol & Werner Brouwer, 2014. "How to Estimate Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 335-344, April.
    6. Sanjib Saha & Birgitta Grahn & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Kjerstin Stigmar & Sara Holmberg & Johan Jarl, 2019. "Structured physiotherapy including a work place intervention for patients with neck and/or back pain in primary care: an economic evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 317-327, March.
    7. Ilias Goranitis & Leana Bellanca & Amanda J Daley & Adele Thomas & Helen Stokes-Lampard & Andrea K Roalfe & Sue Jowett, 2017. "Aerobic exercise for vasomotor menopausal symptoms: A cost-utility analysis based on the Active Women trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, September.
    8. Jonas Steel & Lode Godderis & Jeroen Luyten, 2018. "Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Jackie, Yenerall & Wen, You & George, Davis & Paul, Estabrooks, 2015. "Examining Ways to Handle Non-Random Missingness in CEA through Econometric and Statistics Lenses," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205690, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. David Glynn & John Giardina & Julia Hatamyar & Ankur Pandya & Marta Soares & Noemi Kreif, 2024. "Integrating decision modeling and machine learning to inform treatment stratification," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(8), pages 1772-1792, August.
    11. Klemen Naveršnik, 2015. "Output correlations in probabilistic models with multiple alternatives," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 133-139, March.
    12. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    13. Krol, Marieke & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Severens, Johan L. & Kaper, Janneke & Evers, Silvia M.A.A., 2012. "Productivity cost calculations in health economic evaluations: Correcting for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1981-1988.
    14. Mohamed El Alili & Johanna M. van Dongen & Jonas L. Esser & Martijn W. Heymans & Maurits W. van Tulder & Judith E. Bosmans, 2022. "A scoping review of statistical methods for trial‐based economic evaluations: The current state of play," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2680-2699, December.
    15. L. M. Peña-Longobardo & J. Oliva-Moreno & C. Fernández-Rodriguez, 2023. "The effect of hepatitis C—associated premature deaths on labour productivity losses in Spain: a ten-year analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1271-1283, November.
    16. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Management of Dementia Patients - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:41, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    17. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & Joran Lokkerbol, 2017. "A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Economic Evaluations of Pharmacological Interventions for People with Bipolar Disorder," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 271-296, March.
    18. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    19. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    20. Kaitlyn Hastings & Clara Marquina & Jedidiah Morton & Dina Abushanab & Danielle Berkovic & Stella Talic & Ella Zomer & Danny Liew & Zanfina Ademi, 2022. "Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 449-460, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259493. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.