Premium
Economic evaluation of cognitive behavioral therapy and Internet‐based guided self‐help for binge‐eating disorder
Author(s) -
König HansHelmut,
Bleibler Florian,
Friederich HansChristoph,
Herpertz Stephan,
Lam Tony,
Mayr Andreas,
Schmidt Frauke,
Svaldi Jennifer,
Zipfel Stephan,
Brettschneider Christian,
Hilbert Anja,
de Zwaan Martina,
Egger Nina
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international journal of eating disorders
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.785
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1098-108X
pISSN - 0276-3478
DOI - 10.1002/eat.22822
Subject(s) - psychoeducation , binge eating disorder , binge eating , overweight , cognitive behavioral therapy , randomized controlled trial , psychological intervention , psychology , medicine , clinical psychology , physical therapy , cognition , psychiatry , eating disorders , body mass index , bulimia nervosa , surgery , pathology
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.