与等待名单相比，有或没有治疗师支持的基于互联网的干预措施对有饮食失调症状个体的成本效益：一项随机对照试验。

Cost-utility of an internet-based intervention with or without therapist support in comparison with a waiting list for individuals with eating disorder symptoms: a randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Aardoom J J, Dingemans A E, van Ginkel J R, Spinhoven P, Van Furth E F, Van den Akker-van Marle M E

机构信息

Rivierduinen Eating Disorders Ursula, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Institute of Education and Child Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Int J Eat Disord. 2016 Dec;49(12):1068-1076. doi: 10.1002/eat.22587. Epub 2016 Jul 21.

DOI:10.1002/eat.22587

PMID:27441418

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-utility of the internet-based intervention "Featback" provided with different levels of therapist support, in comparison to a waiting list.

METHOD

This economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective and was part of a randomized controlled trial in which participants (N = 354) with self-reported ED symptoms were randomized to: (1) 8 weeks of Featback, consisting of psychoeducation and a fully automated monitoring- and feedback system, (2) Featback with low-intensity (weekly) therapist support, (3) Featback with high-intensity (three times a week) therapist support, and (4) a waiting list. Participants were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and 3-month follow-up. Cost-utility acceptability curves were constructed.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the study conditions were found regarding quality-adjusted life-years (P = 0.55) and societal costs (P = 0.45), although the mean costs per participant were lowest in the Featback condition with low-intensity therapist support (€1951), followed by Featback with high-intensity therapist support (€2032), Featback without therapist support (€2102), and the waiting list (€2582). Featback seemed to be cost-effective as compared to the waiting list. No clear preference was found for Featback with or without therapist support.

DISCUSSION

A fully automated Internet-based intervention for ED symptoms with no, low-, or high-intensity therapist support represented good value for money when compared to a waiting list. This finding may have important implications for clinical practice, as both the unguided- and guided intervention could allow for more efficient care and widespread dissemination, potentially increasing the accessibility and availability of mental health care services for individuals with ED symptoms. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2016; 49:1068-1076).

摘要

目的

与等待名单相比，研究提供不同程度治疗师支持的基于互联网的干预措施“Featback”的成本效益。

方法

本经济评估从社会角度进行，是一项随机对照试验的一部分，在该试验中，自我报告有进食障碍症状的参与者（N = 354）被随机分为：（1）为期8周的Featback，包括心理教育和一个全自动监测与反馈系统；（2）低强度（每周一次）治疗师支持的Featback；（3）高强度（每周三次）治疗师支持的Featback；（4）等待名单。在基线、干预后和3个月随访时对参与者进行评估。构建了成本效益可接受性曲线。

结果

在质量调整生命年（P = 0.55）和社会成本（P = 0.45）方面，各研究组之间未发现显著差异，尽管在低强度治疗师支持的Featback组中，每位参与者的平均成本最低（1951欧元），其次是高强度治疗师支持的Featback组（2032欧元）、无治疗师支持的Featback组（2102欧元）和等待名单组（2582欧元）。与等待名单相比，Featback似乎具有成本效益。对于有无治疗师支持的Featback，未发现明显偏好。