Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2010
Cost-effectiveness of guided self-help treatment for recurrent binge eating.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lynch Frances L, Striegel-Moore Ruth H, Dickerson John F, Perrin Nancy, Debar Lynn, Wilson G Terence, Kraemer Helena C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Adoption of effective treatments for recurrent binge-eating disorders depends on the balance of costs and benefits. Using data from a recent randomized controlled trial, we conducted an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cognitive-behavioral therapy guided self-help intervention (CBT-GSH) to treat recurrent binge eating compared to treatment as usual (TAU).
METHOD: Participants were 123 adult members of an HMO (mean age = 37.2 years, 91.9% female, 96.7% non-Hispanic White) who met criteria for eating disorders involving binge eating as measured by the Eating Disorder Examination (C. G. Fairburn & Z. Cooper, 1993). Participants were randomized either to treatment as usual (TAU) or to TAU plus CBT-GSH. The clinical outcomes were binge-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); total societal cost was estimated using costs to patients and the health plan and related costs.
RESULTS: Compared to those receiving TAU only, those who received TAU plus CBT-GSH experienced 25.2 more binge-free days and had lower total societal costs of $427 over 12 months following the intervention (incremental CEA ratio of -$20.23 per binge-free day or -$26,847 per QALY). Lower costs in the TAU plus CBT-GSH group were due to reduced use of TAU services in that group, resulting in lower net costs for the TAU plus CBT group despite the additional cost of CBT-GSH.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings support CBT-GSH dissemination for recurrent binge-eating treatment.
METHOD: Participants were 123 adult members of an HMO (mean age = 37.2 years, 91.9% female, 96.7% non-Hispanic White) who met criteria for eating disorders involving binge eating as measured by the Eating Disorder Examination (C. G. Fairburn & Z. Cooper, 1993). Participants were randomized either to treatment as usual (TAU) or to TAU plus CBT-GSH. The clinical outcomes were binge-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); total societal cost was estimated using costs to patients and the health plan and related costs.
RESULTS: Compared to those receiving TAU only, those who received TAU plus CBT-GSH experienced 25.2 more binge-free days and had lower total societal costs of $427 over 12 months following the intervention (incremental CEA ratio of -$20.23 per binge-free day or -$26,847 per QALY). Lower costs in the TAU plus CBT-GSH group were due to reduced use of TAU services in that group, resulting in lower net costs for the TAU plus CBT group despite the additional cost of CBT-GSH.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings support CBT-GSH dissemination for recurrent binge-eating treatment.