Cost-effectiveness of transdiagnostic group cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders <i>v.</i> treatment as usual: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial over an 8-month time horizon using self-reported data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This economic evaluation supplements a pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in community care settings, which showed superior improvement in the symptoms of adults with anxiety disorders who received 12 sessions of transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioural group therapy in addition to treatment as usual (tCBT + TAU) compared to TAU alone. METHODS: This study evaluates the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of tCBT + TAU over an 8-month time horizon. For the reference case, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) obtained using the EQ-5D-5L, and the health system perspective were chosen. Alternatively, anxiety-free days (AFDs), derived from the Beck Anxiety Inventory, and the limited societal perspective were considered. Unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness/utility ratios were calculated. Net-benefit regressions were done for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds range to build cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC). Sensitivity analyses were included. RESULTS: = 117) generated additional QALYs, AFDs, and higher mental health care costs from the health system perspective. From the health system and the limited societal perspectives, at a WTP of Can$ 50 000/QALY, the CEACs showed that the probability of tCBT + TAU v. TAU being cost-effective was 97 and 89%. Promising cost-effectiveness results using AFDs are also presented. The participation of therapists from the public health sector could increase cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited societal and health system perspectives, this first economic evaluation of tCBT shows favourable cost-effectiveness results at a WTP threshold of Can$ 50 000/QALY. Future research is needed to replicate findings in longer follow-up studies and different health system contexts to better inform decision-makers for a full-scale implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".