Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Healthy Adults.

Psychology research and behavior management
May 5, 2023
Maki Nagaoka et al. (6 authors)
Journal ArticleHuman Study
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) from healthcare and employer perspectives.

Results Summary

MBCT showed potential cost-effectiveness from a healthcare perspective (92.2% probability at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY) and cost-benefit from an employer perspective (net monetary benefit of JPY 106,460). The intervention improved work productivity and QALYs.

Population

50 healthy participants meeting inclusion criteria (25 in MBCT group, 25 in wait-list control).

Effective Dosage

Not specified

Duration

16 weeks

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (4)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
increase
cost-effectiveness
healthy participants
92.2% probability at threshold of 30,000 UK pounds per QALY
may be more cost-effective
#1
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
increase
cost-benefit
healthy participants
69.6% probability of net monetary benefit being positive
may be cost-beneficial
#2
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
increase
costs
healthy participants
JPY 24,180
resulted in increased costs
#3
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)
increase
work productivity
healthy participants
JPY 130,640
improved
#4
Abstract

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.

Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy85/10
Quality88/10
0
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.05
Weight Score2.42
Normalized Score0.72
Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial ... | Panacea Index