Cost-Effectiveness of Group Transdiagnostic Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care Settings: Economic Evaluation From the Healthcare System Perspective Over a 1-Year Time Horizon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AimTo assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of group transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioural therapy (tCBT) added to treatment as usual (TAU) for anxiety disorders compared to TAU only from the healthcare system perspective over a 1-year time horizon.MethodsData from a pragmatic multisite randomized controlled trial where adults (18–65 years) with an anxiety disorder were randomized to tCBT + TAU (n = 117) or TAU (n = 114). Group tCBT is a 12-week (2h weekly sessions) community-based intervention. Health service utilization and related costs were captured from medico-administrative data and included those for the intervention, ambulatory visits, hospitalizations and medications. Effectiveness was based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The study included measures at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 months. Intention-to-treat and complete case analyses were carried out. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation analyses. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were used to assess the effect of the intervention on total costs and QALYs while also adjusting for baseline confounders. The probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention was assessed according to different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds using the net benefit regression method.ResultsThe ICER of tCBT + TAU as compared to TAU in the intention-to-treat analysis was $6,581/QALY. Complete case analyses showed a similar ICER of $6,642/QALY. The probability at a WTP threshold of $20,000 and $40,000 that tCBT + TAU as compared to TAU is cost-effective is 93.0% and 99.9%.ConclusiontCBT added to TAU appears to be cost-effective from the healthcare system perspective for treating adult patients with anxiety disorders. Larger trials including young and older adults as well as a range of anxiety disorders are needed to further investigate the cost-effectiveness of tCBT in different patient populations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".