Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:34:48.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness of computerized cognitive–behavioural therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: findings from the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2017

A. Duarte ,
S. Walker ,
E. Littlewood ,
S. Brabyn ,
C. Hewitt ,
S. Gilbody  and
S. Palmer
A. Duarte*
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
S. Walker
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
E. Littlewood
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
S. Brabyn
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
C. Hewitt
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
S. Gilbody
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
S. Palmer
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
*
*Address for correspondence: A. Duarte, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Computerized cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) forms a core component of stepped psychological care for depression. Existing evidence for cCBT has been informed by developer-led trials. This is the first study based on a large independent pragmatic trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care compared with usual GP care alone and to establish the differential cost-effectiveness of a free-to-use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in comparison with a commercial programme (Beating the Blues) in primary care.

Method

Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective and outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of each cCBT programme was compared with usual GP care. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results.

Results

Neither cCBT programme was found to be cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. At a £20 000 per QALY threshold, usual GP care alone had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.55) followed by MoodGYM (0.42) and Beating the Blues (0.04). Usual GP care alone was also the cost-effective intervention in the majority of scenario analyses. However, the magnitude of the differences in costs and QALYs between all groups appeared minor (and non-significant).

Conclusions

Technically supported cCBT programmes do not appear any more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. No cost-effective advantage of the commercially developed cCBT programme was evident compared with the free-to-use cCBT programme. Current UK practice recommendations for cCBT may need to be reconsidered in the light of the results.

Keywords

Computerized cognitive–behavioural therapydepressionprimary care
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 47 , Issue 10 , July 2017 , pp. 1825 - 1835
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, G, Cuijpers, P (2009). Internet-based and other computerized psychological treatments for adult depression: a meta-analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 38, 196–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barber, J, Thompson, S (2004). Multiple regression of cost data: use of generalised linear models. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 9, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bower, P, Gilbody, S (2005). Stepped care in psychological therapies: access, effectiveness and efficiency. Narrative literature review. British Journal of Psychiatry 186, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, J, Roberts, J, Deverill, M (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21, 271–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, J, Roberts, J, Tsuchiya, A, Busschbach, J (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics 13, 873–884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, J, Usherwood, T, Harper, R, Thomas, K (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51, 1115–1128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, A, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M (2006). Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, R (1996). EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, H, Griffiths, KM, Jorm, AF (2004). Delivering interventions for depression by using the Internet: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 328, 265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, L (2012). Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2012. Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), the University of Kent: Canterbury.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2012). National Schedules of Reference Costs: NHS Own Costs. NHS Reference Costs: Financial Year 2011 to 2012. Department of Health (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-financial-year-2011-to-2012). Accessed February 2017.Google Scholar
Dolan, P, Gudex, C, Kind, P, Williams, A (1995). A social tariff for EuroQoL: results from a UK general population survey. In CHE Discussion Paper. Centre for Health Economics: York.Google Scholar
Fenwick, E, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M (2001). Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Economics 10, 779–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerhards, S, de Graaf, LE, Jacobs, L, Severens, J, Huibers, M, Arntz, A, Riper, H, Widdershoven, G, Metsemakers, J, Evers, S (2010). Economic evaluation of online computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy without support for depression in primary care: randomised trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 196, 310–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbody, S, Littlewood, E, Hewitt, C, Brierley, G, Tharmanathan, P, Araya, R, Barkham, M, Bower, P, Cooper, C, Gask, L, Kessler, D, Lester, H, Lovell, K, Parry, G, Richards, DA, Andersen, P, Brabyn, S, Knowles, S, Shepherd, C, Tallon, D, White, D; REEACT Team (2015). Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 351, h5627.Google ScholarPubMed
Gray, AM, Marshall, M, Lockwood, A, Morris, J (1997). Problems in conducting economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. Lessons from a study of case management for people with mental disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry 170, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollinghurst, S, Peters, TJ, Kaur, S, Wiles, N, Lewis, G, Kessler, D (2010). Cost-effectiveness of therapist-delivered online cognitive–behavioural therapy for depression: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 197, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joint Formulary Committee (2013). British National Formulary. BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press: London.Google Scholar
Kaltenthaler, E, Brazier, J, De Nigris, E, Tumur, I, Ferriter, M, Beverley, C, Parry, G, Rooney, G, Sutcliffe, PA (2006). Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 10, iii, xi–xiv, 1–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JBW (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General Internal Medicine 16, 606–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kupfer, DJ, Frank, E, Wamhoff, J (1996). Mood disorders: update on prevention of recurrence. In Interpersonal Factors in the Origin and Course of Affective Disorders (ed. Mundt, C and Goldstein, MJ), pp. 289–302. Gaskell/Royal College of Psychiatrists: London.Google Scholar
Littlewood, E, Duarte, A, Hewitt, C, Knowles, S, Palmer, S, Walker, S, Andersen, P, Araya, R, Barkham, M, Bower, P, Brabyn, S, Brierley, G, Cooper, C, Gask, L, Kessler, D, Lester, H, Lovell, K, Muhammad, U, Parry, G, Richards, DA, Richardson, R, Tallon, D, Tharmanathan, P, White, D, Gilbody, S; REEACT Team (2015). A randomised controlled trial of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial. Health Technology Assessment 19, viii, xxi–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manca, A, Hawkins, N, Sculpher, MJ (2005). Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Economics 14, 487–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, JN, Altman, DG, Campbell, MJ, Royston, P (1990). Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ 300, 230–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrone, P, Knapp, M, Proudfoot, J, Ryden, C, Cavanagh, K, Shapiro, DA, Ilson, S, Gray, JA, Goldberg, D, Mann, A (2004). Cost-effectiveness of computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression in primary care: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 185, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moussavi, S, Chatterji, S, Verdes, E, Tandon, A, Patel, V, Ustun, B (2007). Depression, chronic diseases, and decrements in health: results from the World Health Surveys. Lancet 370, 851–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE: London.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009). Depression: The Treatment and Management of Depression in Adults (Update). Clinical Guideline 90. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: London.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, J, Ryden, C, Everitt, B, Shapiro, DA, Goldberg, D, Mann, A, Tylee, A, Marks, I, Gray, JA (2004). Clinical efficacy of computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression in primary care: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 185, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, A, Fonagy, P (2005). What Works for Whom: A Critical Review of Psychotherapy Research. The Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Royston, P (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal 4, 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spek, V, Nyklícek, I, Smits, N, Cuijpers, P, Riper, H, Keyzer, J, Pop, V (2007). Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy for subthreshold depression in people over 50 years old: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Psychological Medicine 37, 1797–1806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The EuroQol Group (1990). EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Üstün, TB, Ayuso-Mateos, JL, Chatterji, S, Mathers, C, Murray, CJL (2004). Global burden of depressive disorders in the year 2000. British Journal of Psychiatry 184, 386–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warmerdam, L, Smit, F, van Straten, A, Riper, H, Cuijpers, P (2010). Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of Internet-based treatment for adults with depressive symptoms: randomized trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research 12, e53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Duarte supplementary material

Tables S1-S3

Download Duarte supplementary material(File)
File 50.2 KB