Cargando…
Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Healthy Adults
PURPOSE: This study aimed to conduct an economic evaluation of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in healthy participants by performing cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: CUA was carried out from a healthcare sector perspective and CBA was from...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10364820/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37492861 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S406347 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: This study aimed to conduct an economic evaluation of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in healthy participants by performing cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: CUA was carried out from a healthcare sector perspective and CBA was from the employer’s perspective in parallel with a randomized controlled trial. Of the 90 healthy participants, 50 met the inclusion criteria and were randomized to the MBCT group (n = 25) or wait-list control group (n = 25). In the CUA, intervention costs and healthcare costs were included, while the mean difference in the change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the baseline and 16-week follow-up was used as an indicator of effect. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was produced, and uncertainty was addressed using non-parametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications. In the CBA, the change in productivity losses was reflected as a benefit, while the costs included intervention and healthcare costs. The net monetary benefit was calculated, and uncertainty was handled with 5000 bootstrapping. Healthcare costs were measured with the self-report Health Service Use Inventory. The purchasing power parity in 2019 was used for currency conversion. RESULTS: In the CUA, incremental costs and QALYs were estimated at JPY 19,700 (USD 189) and 0.011, respectively. The ICER then became JPY 1,799,435 (USD 17,252). The probability of MBCT being cost-effective was 92.2% at the threshold of 30,000 UK pounds per QALY. The CBA revealed that MBCT resulted in increased costs (JPY 24,180) and improved work productivity (JPY 130,640), with a net monetary benefit of JPY 106,460 (USD 1021). The probability of the net monetary benefit being positive was 69.6%. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that MBCT may be more cost-effective from a healthcare sector perspective and may be cost-beneficial from the employer’s perspective. |
---|