Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, UK.
Psychology Services, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, UK.
Br J Clin Psychol. 2019 Jun;58(2):187-210. doi: 10.1111/bjc.12208. Epub 2018 Nov 29.
Acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions (A/MBIs) are recommended for people with mental health conditions. Although there is a growing evidence base supporting the effectiveness of different A/MBIs for mental health conditions, the economic case for these interventions has not been fully explored. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and appraise all available economic evidence of A/MBIs for the management of mental health conditions.
Eight electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and EconLit) were searched for relevant economic evaluations published from each database's inception date until November 2017. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were carried out according to published guidelines.
Ten relevant economic evaluations presented in 11 papers were identified. Seven of the included studies were full economic evaluations (i.e., costs and effects assessed), and three studies were partial economic evaluations (i.e., only costs were considered in the analysis). The A/MBIs that had been subjected to economic evaluation were acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). In terms of clinical presentations, the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of A/MBIs has been more focused on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder with three and four economic evaluations, respectively. Three out of seven full economic evaluations observed that A/MBIs were cost-effective for the management of mental health conditions. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of included populations, interventions, and economic evaluation study types limits the extent to which firm conclusions can currently be made.
This first substantive review of economic evaluations of A/MBIs indicates that more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the cost-effectiveness of A/MBIs for mental health conditions.
The findings of the review provide information that may be relevant to mental health service commissioners and decision-makers as all economic evidence available on acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions for mental health conditions is summarized. Evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions is focused mainly on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder to date. Heterogeneity in the specific forms of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions may limit generalizability of the findings. The number of health economic evaluations relating to acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions remains relatively small. Further research in this area is required.
接受和基于正念的干预(A/MBIs)被推荐用于心理健康状况的人群。尽管有越来越多的证据支持不同的 A/MBIs 对心理健康状况的有效性,但这些干预措施的经济案例尚未得到充分探讨。本系统评价的目的是确定和评估所有关于 A/MBIs 管理心理健康状况的经济证据。
检索了 8 个电子书目数据库(MEDLINE、MEDLINE In-Process & 其他非索引引文、EMBASE、Web of Science、NHS 经济评估数据库(EED)、疗效摘要数据库(DARE)、卫生技术评估(HTA)数据库和 EconLit),以获取自每个数据库创建日期起至 2017 年 11 月发表的相关经济评估。根据已发表的指南进行研究选择、质量评估和数据提取。
确定了 11 篇论文中包含的 10 项相关经济评估。纳入的研究中有 7 项是完整的经济评估(即评估了成本和效果),3 项是部分经济评估(即仅在分析中考虑了成本)。已经进行了经济评估的 A/MBIs 包括接受和承诺疗法(ACT)、辩证行为疗法(DBT)、正念认知疗法(MBCT)和正念减压疗法(MBSR)。就临床表现而言,对 A/MBIs 的成本效益评估更侧重于抑郁症和情绪不稳定人格障碍,分别有三项和四项经济评估。7 项完整的经济评估中有 3 项观察到 A/MBIs 对管理心理健康状况具有成本效益。然而,纳入人群、干预措施和经济评估研究类型的异质性限制了目前能够得出明确结论的程度。
这是对 A/MBIs 的经济评估的首次实质性综述,表明在对 A/MBIs 治疗心理健康状况的成本效益得出明确结论之前,还需要进行更多的研究。
该综述的结果为心理健康服务专员和决策者提供了信息,因为对所有可用于心理健康状况的接受和正念干预的经济证据进行了总结。迄今为止,与接受和正念干预的成本效益和节省成本潜力相关的证据主要集中在抑郁症和情绪不稳定人格障碍上。特定形式的接受和正念干预的异质性可能限制了研究结果的普遍性。与接受和正念干预相关的健康经济评估数量相对较少。需要在这一领域进行进一步研究。