Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Healthy Adults.
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
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
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.