IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0262220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy intervention vs. a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy intervention for older adults with anxiety symptoms: A randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Maartje Witlox
  • Vivian Kraaij
  • Nadia Garnefski
  • Ernst Bohlmeijer
  • Filip Smit
  • Philip Spinhoven

Abstract

Background: A previous randomized controlled trial in older adults with anxiety symptoms found no differences between a brief blended Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention and brief face-to-face Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) regarding anxiety symptom severity at posttreatment and 12-month follow-up. A health-economic evaluation comparing these interventions has not yet been conducted. Objective: This study examined the one-year cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of blended ACT compared to face-to-face CBT for older adults with anxiety symptoms. Methods: The economic evaluation was embedded in a randomized controlled trial comparing blended ACT to CBT in 314 older adults with mild to moderately severe anxiety symptoms. Data were collected at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post baseline. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, treatment response was defined as a reliable improvement in anxiety symptom severity (measured with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) between baseline and 12-month follow-up. To assess cost-utility, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed using EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels-5 utility scores. Analyses took the societal perspective, including both healthcare costs and productivity costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated using 2500 bootstraps of seemingly unrelated regression equations of costs and effects. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Results: Differences between the blended ACT group and CBT group in treatment response and QALYs were statistically insignificant and clinically irrelevant. The ACT intervention was associated with an average per-participant cost reduction of €466 ($593) compared to CBT, which resulted from lower productivity costs in the blended ACT group. From a healthcare perspective, the ACT intervention was associated with higher costs (by €71 ($90)) than CBT. Conclusions: The results do not indicate that from a health-economic perspective blended ACT should be preferred over CBT in the treatment of older adults with anxiety symptoms. The findings support a model of shared decision making, where clinicians and patients collaboratively decide on the preferred intervention, based on ethical-medical, practical and personal considerations. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register: TRIAL NL6131 (NTR6270); https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6131.

Suggested Citation

  • Maartje Witlox & Vivian Kraaij & Nadia Garnefski & Ernst Bohlmeijer & Filip Smit & Philip Spinhoven, 2022. "Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy intervention vs. a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy intervention for older adults with anxiety symptoms: A randomized controlled," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0262220
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262220
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0262220&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0262220?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0262220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.