Suppr超能文献

认知行为疗法和基于互联网的自助指导治疗暴食症的经济评价。

Economic evaluation of cognitive behavioral therapy and Internet-based guided self-help for binge-eating disorder.

机构信息

Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics (HCHE), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Department of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Medical University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

出版信息

Int J Eat Disord. 2018 Feb;51(2):155-164. doi: 10.1002/eat.22822. Epub 2018 Jan 18.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of individual face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) compared to therapist guided Internet-based self-help (GSH-I) in overweight or obese adults with binge-eating disorder (BED).

METHOD

Analysis was conducted alongside the multicenter randomized controlled INTERBED trial. CBT (n = 76) consisted of up to 20 individual therapy sessions over 4 months. GSH-I (n = 71) consisted of 11 modules combining behavioral interventions, exercises including a self-monitoring food diary, psychoeducation, and 2 face-to-face coaching sessions over 4 months. Assessments at baseline, after 4 months (post-treatment), as well as 6 and 18 months after the end of treatment included health care utilization and sick leave days to calculate direct and indirect costs. Binge-free days (BFD) were calculated as effect measure based on the German version of the Eating Disorder Examination. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined, and net benefit regressions, adjusted for comorbidities and baseline differences, were used to derive cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

After controlling for baseline differences, CBT was associated with non-significantly more costs (+€2,539) and BFDs (+40.1) compared with GSH-I during the 22-month observation period, resulting in an adjusted ICER of €63 per additional BFD. CBTs probability of being cost-effective increased above 80% only if societal willingness to pay (WTP) was ≥€250 per BFD.

DISCUSSION

We did not find clear evidence for one of the treatments being more cost-effective. CBT tends to be more effective but also more costly. If the societal WTP for an additional BFD is low, then our results suggest that GSH-I should rather be adopted.

摘要

目的

确定个体面对面认知行为疗法(CBT)与治疗师指导的基于互联网的自助治疗(GSH-I)相比,在患有暴食症(BED)的超重或肥胖成年人中的成本效益。

方法

在多中心随机对照 INTERBED 试验中进行了分析。CBT(n=76)包括最多 20 次 4 个月的个体治疗。GSH-I(n=71)包括 11 个模块,结合行为干预、包括自我监测食物日记在内的练习、心理教育以及 4 个月内 2 次面对面辅导。在基线、4 个月后(治疗后)以及治疗结束后 6 和 18 个月进行评估,包括医疗保健利用和病假天数,以计算直接和间接成本。无暴食日(BFD)作为基于德国版饮食障碍检查的效果衡量标准进行计算。确定增量成本效益比(ICER),并进行净收益回归,根据共病和基线差异进行调整,以得出成本效益可接受性曲线。

结果

在控制基线差异后,CBT 与 GSH-I 相比,在 22 个月的观察期内,费用(+€2539)和 BFD(+40.1)均无显著增加,导致调整后的每增加一个 BFD 的 ICER 为€63。只有当社会支付意愿(WTP)≥€250 时,CBT 的成本效益才有超过 80%的可能性。

讨论

我们没有发现一种治疗方法更具成本效益的明确证据。CBT 往往更有效,但也更昂贵。如果社会对额外 BFD 的 WTP 较低,那么我们的结果表明,GSH-I 应该更优先采用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验