Search

Objectives The ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses 5 capabilities (stability, attachment, autonomy, achievement, and enjoyment) that are important to one’s quality of life and might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires currently used in economic evaluations. This study aimed to develop a Dutch tariff of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A. Methods The methods used are similar to those used in the development of the UK tariff. A profile case best–worst scaling task was presented to 1002 participants from the general Dutch population. A scale-adjusted latent class analysis was performed to test for preferences of ICECAP-A capabilities and scale heterogeneity. Results A 3-preference class 2-scale class model with worst choice as scale predictor was considered optimal and was used to calculate the resulting tariff. Results indicated that the capabilities stability, attachment, and enjoyment were considered more important aspects of quality of life than autonomy and achievement. Additionally, improving capabilities from low to moderate levels had a larger effect on quality of life than improving capabilities that were already at a higher level. Conclusions The ICECAP-A tariffs found in this study could be used in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Many individuals with an eating disorder do not receive appropriate care. Low-threshold interventions could help bridge this treatment gap. The study aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of Featback, a fully automated online self-help intervention, online expert-patient support and their combination. METHOD: A randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up period was conducted. Participants aged 16 or older with at least mild eating disorder symptoms were randomized to four conditions: (1) Featback, a fully automated online self-help intervention, (2) chat or email support from a recovered expert patient, (3) Featback with expert-patient support and (4) a waiting list control condition. The intervention period was 8 weeks and there was a total of six online assessments. The main outcome constituted reduction of eating disorder symptoms over time. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty five participants, of whom 43% had never received eating disorder treatment, were randomized. The three active interventions were superior to a waitlist in reducing eating disorder symptoms (d = -0.38), with no significant difference in effectiveness between the three interventions. Participants in conditions with expert-patient support were more satisfied with the intervention. DISCUSSION: Internet-based self-help, expert-patient support and their combination were effective in reducing eating disorder symptoms compared to a waiting list control condition. Guidance improved satisfaction with the internet intervention but not its effectiveness. Low-threshold interventions such as Featback and expert-patient support can reduce eating disorder symptoms and reach the large group of underserved individuals, complementing existing forms of eating disorder treatment. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Individuals with eating-related problems who received (1) a fully automated internet-based intervention, (2) chat and e-mail support by a recovered individual or (3) their combination, experienced stronger reductions in eating disorder symptoms than those who received (4) usual care. Such brief and easy-access interventions play an important role in reaching individuals who are currently not reached by other forms of treatment. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS vol:55 issue:10 pages:1361-1373 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Objective: The primary aim was assessing the cost-effectiveness of an internet-based self-help program, expert-patient support, and the combination of both compared to a care-as-usual condition. Method: An economic evaluation from a societal perspective was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. Participants aged 16 or older with at least mild eating disorder symptoms were randomly assigned to four conditions: (1) Featback, an online unguided self-help program, (2) chat or e-mail support from a recovered expert patient, (3) Featback with expert-patient support, and (4) care-as-usual. After a baseline assessment and intervention period of 8 weeks, five online assessments were conducted over 12 months of follow-up. The main result constituted cost-utility acceptability curves with quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs over the entire study duration. Results: No significant differences between the conditions were found regarding QALYs, health care costs and societal costs. Nonsignificant differences in QALYs were in favor of the Featback conditions and the lowest societal costs per participant were observed in the Featback only condition (euro16,741) while the highest costs were seen in the care-as-usual condition (euro 28,479). The Featback only condition had the highest probability of being efficient compared to the alternatives for all acceptable willingness-to-pay values. Discussion: Featback, an internet-based unguided self-help intervention, was likely to be efficient compared to Featback with guidance from an expert patient, guidance alone and a care-as-usual condition. Results suggest that scalable interventions such as Featback may reduce health care costs and help individuals with eating disorders that are currently not reached by other forms of treatment. Public significance statement Internet-based interventions for eating disorders might reach individuals in society who currently do not receive appropriate treatment at low costs. Featback, an online automated self-help program for eating disorders, was found to improve quality of life slightly while reducing costs for society, compared to a do-nothing approach. Consequently, implementing internet-based interventions such as Featback likely benefits both individuals suffering from an eating disorder and society as a whole.

BACKGROUND Economic costs of mental disorders for society are huge. Internet-based interventions are often coined as cost-effective alternative to usual care, but evidence is mixed. OBJECTIVE The aim was to review the literature on cost-effectiveness of eHealth interventions for mental disorders compared to usual care and to provide an estimate of the monetary benefits of such interventions compared to usual care. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis of (1) randomized controlled trials that (2) included participants with symptoms of mental disorders, (3) investigated a telephone or internet-based intervention, (4) included a control condition in the form of treatment as usual, psychological placebo, waiting list control or bibliotherapy, (5) reported outcomes on both quality of life and costs and (6) were published in English, was conducted. Electronic databases PubMed (including Medline), Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were searched. Data on risk of bias, quality of the economic evaluation, quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were extracted from included studies and the incremental net benefit (INB) was calculated and pooled. RESULTS The search yielded 6226 abstracts and 37 studies with 14,946 participants were included. Quality of economic evaluations of included studies was rated to be moderate and risk of bias was high. A random-effects approach was maintained. Analyses suggested internet interventions to be slightly more effective than usual care in terms of QALY gain, Hedges’ g=.052 (95% CI .010; .094, P=.016), and equally expensive, Hedges’ g=.002 (95% CI -.080; 0.84, P=.96). The pooled INB was $255, (95% CI $91; $419, P=.002), favoring eHealth interventions over usual care. Perspective of the economic evaluation and targeted mental disorder moderated results. CONCLUSIONS Findings indicate that cost-effectiveness of e-mental health interventions compared to a care-as-usual approach is likely, but generalizability to new studies is poor given the substantial heterogeneity. This is the first study in the area of mental health to pool cost-effectiveness outcomes in an aggregate-data meta-analysis. CLINICALTRIAL Prospero registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; registration number: CRD42019141659.

Purpose The ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses five capabilities that are important to one’s well-being. The instrument might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires when evaluating quality of life extending beyond health. This study aimed to conduct a psychometric assessment of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A. Methods Construct validity of the instrument was assessed in two ways. First, by measuring correlations with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and a measure of self-efficacy and, second, by investigating the ability to distinguish between groups known to differ on the construct the ICECAP-A means to capture. Additionally, test–retest reliability was evaluated. Results In total, 1002 participants representative of the general Dutch population completed an online survey. For test–retest reliability, 252 participants completed the same questionnaire 2 weeks later. The ICECAP-A indicated moderate to strong correlations with the EQ-5D-5L and a strong correlation with self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was capable of differentiating known groups. Moreover, results indicated adequate test–retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79. Conclusion In summary, results suggest adequate test–retest reliability and construct validity and indicate that the ICECAP-A might be of added value, especially when considering areas outside of the traditional health intervention model.

Background: E-mental health has become increasingly popular in interventions for individuals with eating disorders (EDs). It has the potential to offer low-threshold interventions and guide individuals to the needed care more promptly. Featback is such an Internet-based intervention and consists of psychoeducation and a fully automated monitoring and feedback system. Preliminary findings suggest Featback to be (cost-)effective in reducing ED symptomatology. Additionally, e-mail or chat support by a psychologist did not enhance theeffectiveness of Featback. Support by an expert patient (someone with a lived experience of an ED) might be more effective, since that person can effectively model healthy behavior and enhance self-efficacy in individuals struggling with an ED. The present study aims to replicate and build on earlier findings by further investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of Featback and the added value of expert-patient support.Methods: The study will be a randomized controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design with repeatedmeasures. The four conditions will be (1) Featback, in which participants receive automated feedback on a short monitoring questionnaire weekly, (2) Featback with weekly e-mail or chat support from an expert patient, (3) weekly support from an expert patient, and (4) a waiting list. Participants who are 16 years or older and have at least mild self-reported ED symptoms receive a baseline measure. Subsequently, they are randomized to one of the four conditions for 8 weeks. Participants will be assessed again post-intervention and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome measure will be ED psychopathology. Secondary outcome measures are experienced social support, self-efficacy, symptoms of anxiety and depression, user satisfaction, intervention usage, and help-seeking attitudes and behaviors.Discussion: The current study is the first to investigate e-mental health in combination with expert-patient support for EDs and will add to the optimization of the delivery of Internet-based interventions and expert-patient support.Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR7065. Registered on 7 June 2018.Keywords: Eating disorders, Internet, Internet-based, E-mental health, Intervention, Treatment, Prevention, Expert patient, Peer support, Cost-effectiveness