Search

Background: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent and cause substantial economic burden. Blended cognitive-behavioural therapy (bCBT), which integrates Internet-based CBT and face-to-face CBT (ftfCBT), is an attractive and potentially cost-saving treatment alternative to conventional CBT for patients with anxiety disorders in specialised mental health care. However, little is known about the effectiveness of bCBT in routine care. We examined the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bCBT versus ftfCBT in outpatient specialised care to patients with panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder., Methods and Findings: Patients with anxiety disorders were randomised to bCBT (n = 52) or ftfCBT (n = 62). Acceptability of bCBT and ftfCBT were evaluated by assessing treatment preference, adherence, satisfaction and therapeutic alliance. Costs and effects were assessed at post-treatment and one-year follow-up. Primary outcome measure was the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, general psychopathology, work and social adjustment, quality of life and mastery. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed from societal and healthcare perspectives by calculating the incremental costs per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY). No significant differences between bCBT and ftfCBT were found on acceptability or effectiveness measures at post-treatment (Cohen's d between-group effect size on BAI = 0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.60) or at one-year follow-up (d = -0.38, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.09). The modelled point estimates of societal costs (bCBT €10945, ftfCBT €10937) were higher and modelled point estimates of direct medical costs (bCBT €3748, ftfCBT €3841) were lower in bCBT. The acceptability curves showed that bCBT was expected to be a cost-effective intervention. Results should be carefully interpreted due to the small sample size., Conclusions: bCBT appears an acceptable, clinically effective and potentially cost-saving alternative option for treating patients with anxiety disorders. Trials with larger samples are needed to further investigate cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4912., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Early identification of patients with an anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in need of highly specialized care could facilitate the selection of the optimal initial treatment in these patients. This paper describes the development and psychometric evaluation of the Decision Tool Anxiety Disorders, OCD and PTSD (DTAOP), which aims to aid clinicians in the early identification of patients with an anxiety disorder, OCD, or PTSD in need of highly specialized mental healthcare., Methods: A systematic literature review and a concept mapping procedure were carried out to inform the development of the DTAOP. To evaluate the psychometric properties of the DTAOP, a cross-sectional study in 454 patients with a DSM-IV-TR anxiety disorder was carried out. Feasibility was evaluated by the completion time and the content clarity of the DTAOP. Inter-rater reliability was assessed in a subsample of 87 patients. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between the DTAOP and EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) scores were computed to examine the convergent validity. Criterion validity was assessed against independent clinical judgments made by clinicians., Results: The average time required to complete the eight-item DTAOP was 4.6 min and the total DTAOP was evaluated as clear in the majority (93%) of the evaluations. Krippendorff's alpha estimates ranged from 0.427 to 0.839. Based on the qualitative feedback, item wording and instructions were improved. As hypothesized, the DTAOP correlated negatively with EQ-5D-5L scores. The area under the curve was 0.826 and the cut-off score of ≥4 optimized sensitivity (70%) and specificity (71%)., Conclusions: The DTAOP demonstrated excellent feasibility and good validity, but weak inter-rater reliability. Based on the qualitative feedback and reliability estimates, revisions and refinements of the wording and instructions were made, resulting in the final version of the DTAOP., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: The Treatment Inventory Cost in Psychiatric patients (TIC-P) instrument is designed to measure societal costs in patients with psychiatric disorders and to be applied in economic evaluations. Efforts have been made to minimize respondents' burden by reducing the number of questions and meanwhile retaining the comprehensiveness of the instrument. Previously, a TIC-P Mini version and a TIC-P Midi version were developed and tested in a predominantly inpatient patient population., Aims of the Study: The aims of this study are to examine the comprehensiveness of the abridged questionnaires in estimating the societal costs for patients with anxiety or depressive disorders and to assess the impact of productivity costs on the total costs., Methods: The comprehensiveness of the abridged versions of the TIC-P was assessed in four populations: a group of primary care patients with anxiety disorders (n=175) and three groups of patients with major depressive disorders in various outpatient settings (n=140; n=125; and n=79). Comprehensiveness was measured using the proportion of total health care costs and productivity costs covered by the abridged versions compared to the full-length TIC-P. Costs were calculated according to the guidelines for costing studies using the Dutch costing manual., Results: Our results showed that the TIC-P Mini covered 26%-64% of health care costs and the TIC-P Midi captured 54%-79% of health care costs. Health care costs in these populations were predominantly dispersed over primary care, outpatient hospital care, outpatient specialist care and inpatient hospital care. The TIC-P Midi and TIC-P Mini captured 22% and 0% of primary care costs respectively. In contrast, inpatient hospital care costs and outpatient specialist mental health care costs were almost fully included in the abridged versions. Costs due to lost productivity as measured by the full-length TIC-P were substantial, representing 38% to 92% of total costs., Discussion: A reduction of the number of items resulted in a substantial loss in the ability to measure health care costs compared to the full-length TIC-P, because these outpatient populations consumed health care from a variety of health care providers. Two limitations of the study need to be stressed. Firstly, the number of patients in each of the four studies was relatively small. However, results were consistent over the four studies despite the small number of patients. Secondly, we did not take costs of medication into account., Implications for Health Policies: In developing mental health policy, it is important to include considerations on cost-effectiveness. Increasing the evidence on instruments to measure costs from a societal perspective may support policymakers to adopt a broader perspective., Implications for Further Research: The TIC-P Mini is not suitable to capture health care costs in outpatients with anxiety or depressive disorders. The comprehensiveness of TIC-P Midi compared to the full-length TIC-P varied. The TIC-P Midi should therefore be revised in order to better capture costs in all patient groups.

Objective: Generalized anxiety and panic disorders are a burden on the society because they are costly and have a significant adverse effect on quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of a collaborative stepped care intervention for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder in primary care compared to care as usual from a societal perspective., Methods: The design of the study was a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands participated in the study. Eventually, 180 patients were included (114 collaborative stepped care, 66 care as usual). Baseline measures and follow-up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed using questionnaires. We applied the TiC-P, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and health related quality of life., Results: The average annual direct medical costs in the collaborative stepped care group were 1854 Euro (95% C.I., 1726 to 1986) compared to €1503 (95% C.I., 1374 to 1664) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.05 higher in the collaborative stepped care group, leading to an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 6965 Euro per QALY. Inclusion of the productivity costs, consequently reflecting the full societal costs, decreased the ratio even more., Conclusion: The study showed that collaborative stepped care was a cost effective intervention for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder and was even dominant when a societal perspective was taken., Trial Registration: trialregister.nl, Netherlands Trial Register NTR107., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Panic disorder (PD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are two of the most disabling and costly anxiety disorders seen in primary care. However, treatment quality of these disorders in primary care generally falls beneath the standard of international guidelines. Collaborative stepped care is recommended for improving treatment of anxiety disorders, but cost-effectiveness of such an intervention has not yet been assessed in primary care. This article describes the aims and design of a study that is currently underway. The aim of this study is to evaluate effects and costs of a collaborative stepped care approach in the primary care setting for patients with PD and GAD compared with care as usual., Methods/design: The study is a two armed, cluster randomized controlled trial. Care managers and their primary care practices will be randomized to deliver either collaborative stepped care (CSC) or care as usual (CAU). In the CSC group a general practitioner, care manager and psychiatrist work together in a collaborative care framework. Stepped care is provided in three steps: 1) guided self-help, 2) cognitive behavioral therapy and 3) antidepressant medication. Primary care patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD and/or GAD will be included. 134 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 1/2 SD on the primary outcome measure, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Data on anxiety symptoms, mental and physical health, quality of life, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months., Discussion: It is hypothesized that the collaborative stepped care intervention will be more cost-effective than care as usual. The pragmatic design of this study will enable the researchers to evaluate what is possible in real clinical practice, rather than under ideal circumstances. Many requirements for a high quality trial are being met. Results of this study will contribute to treatment options for GAD and PD in the primary care setting. Results will become available in 2011., Trial Registration: NTR1071.