Guliani H, Witt J, Peynenburg V, Wilhelms A, Nugent M, Dear B F, Titov N, Hadjistavropoulos H D
3737 Wascana Parkway, Department of Economics, University of Regina, Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada.
15 Chancellors Circle, Department of Economics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V5, Canada.
Internet Interv. 2022 Aug 20;29:100567. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2022.100567. eCollection 2022 Sep.
In routine care, Internet-delivered Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (ICBT) is often delivered with therapist support via emails/phone calls, but the cost-effectiveness of varying amounts of therapist support or having therapists specialized in ICBT is not known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of specialized therapists providing ICBT support once-weekly (1WS) versus providing support once-weekly supplemented with a one-business-day response to patient emails (1W/1BD-S). We further compared the cost-effectiveness of 1W support offered by therapists employed in a specialized clinic (1WS) versus community clinics where therapists primarily deliver face-to-face therapy (1WC). Patients were randomly allocated to groups: 1WS group ( = 216), 1W/1BD-S group ( = 233), and 1WC group ( = 226). At baseline, 12, 24 and 52-week follow-up, patients completed the Treatment Inventory of Costs in Patients with Psychiatric Disorders questionnaire (TiC-P) adapted for use in Canada to assess healthcare use and productivity losses. Additionally, to assess Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained, patients completed the EQ-5D-5L at the same time periods. We quantified uncertainties by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis and reported Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. Cost-effectiveness over 52 weeks was CAD 3072/QALY for 1WC, CAD 3244/QALY for 1W/1BD-S, and CAD 3528/QALY for 1WS. Our model suggests that 1WS is the best strategy since the incremental cost per QALY is below the $50,000 threshold (ICER is CAD 42,328/QALY compared to the next most effective, 1WC). 1W/1BD-S is dominated by the other strategies. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggest that the 1WS group has a higher probability for cost-effectiveness (38 %) than 1W/1BD-S (30 %) and 1WC (32 %) when the willingness to pay is $50,000 per QALY. These results have important implications for health policymakers deciding on delivery of ICBT for the treatment of anxiety and/depressive disorders.
在常规护理中,互联网认知行为疗法(ICBT)通常在治疗师的支持下通过电子邮件/电话进行,但不同程度的治疗师支持或配备ICBT专业治疗师的成本效益尚不清楚。本研究比较了由专业治疗师每周提供一次ICBT支持(1WS)与每周提供一次支持并对患者电子邮件给予一个工作日回复(1W/1BD-S)的成本效益。我们还比较了专业诊所雇佣的治疗师提供的每周一次支持(1WS)与治疗师主要提供面对面治疗的社区诊所(1WC)的成本效益。患者被随机分配到各组:1WS组(n = 216)、1W/1BD-S组(n = 233)和1WC组(n = 226)。在基线、12周、24周和52周随访时,患者完成了适用于加拿大的《精神障碍患者治疗成本清单问卷》(TiC-P),以评估医疗保健使用情况和生产力损失。此外,为了评估获得的质量调整生命年(QALY),患者在同一时期完成了EQ-5D-5L。我们通过单因素和概率敏感性分析量化不确定性,并报告增量成本效益比(ICER)、成本效益平面和可接受性曲线。52周的成本效益为:1WC为3072加元/QALY,1W/1BD-S为3244加元/QALY,1WS为3528加元/QALY。我们的模型表明,1WS是最佳策略,因为每QALY的增量成本低于50,000美元的阈值(与次最有效的1WC相比,ICER为42,328加元/QALY)。1W/1BD-S被其他策略所主导。成本效益可接受性曲线表明,当每QALY的支付意愿为50,000美元时,1WS组具有成本效益的概率(38%)高于1W/1BD-S组(30%)和1WC组(32%)。这些结果对于卫生政策制定者决定提供ICBT治疗焦虑症和/或抑郁症具有重要意义。