Trial reportBMC psychiatry2017
Economic evaluation of an experience sampling method intervention in depression compared with treatment as usual using data from a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of SELFIE, a transdiagnostic ecological momentary intervention for improving self-esteem in youth aged 12-26 years exposed to childhood adversity: Findings from a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Psychological medicine · 2026Trial
- Moderators of the cost-effectiveness of transdiagnostic CBT for anxiety disorders over an 8-month time horizon using a net-benefit regression framework.BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- Self-monitoring and personalized feedback based on the experiencing sampling method as a tool to boost depression treatment: a protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (ZELF-i).BMC psychiatry · 2018Trial
- Trial
- A perspective on the use of patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcome measures in ambulatory healthcare.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2025Review
- Understanding Appropriation of Digital Self-Monitoring Tools in Mental Health Care: Qualitative Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Article
- [Digital forms of service delivery for personalized crisis resolution and home treatment].Der Nervenarzt · 2022Review
- Evidence Synthesis of Digital Interventions to Mitigate the Negative Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Mental Health: Rapid Meta-review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Ecological Momentary Assessment Using Smartphones in Patients With Depression: Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.Health economics review · 2020Review
- Developing Effective Methods for Electronic Health Personalization: Protocol for Health Telescope, a Prospective Interventional Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- A narrative synthesis systematic review of digital self-monitoring interventions for middle-aged and older adults.Internet interventions · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExperience sampling, a method for real-time self-monitoring of affective experiences, holds opportunities for person-tailored treatment. By focussing on dynamic patterns of positive affect, experience sampling method interventions (ESM-I) accommodate strategies to enhance personalized treatment of depression-at potentially low-costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an experience sampling method intervention in patients with depression, from a societal perspective.
methodsParticipants were recruited between January 2010 and February 2012 from out-patient mental health care facilities in or near the Dutch cities of Eindhoven and Maastricht, and through local advertisements. Out-patients diagnosed with major depression (n = 101) receiving pharmacotherapy were randomized into: (i) ESM-I consisting of six weeks of ESM combined with weekly feedback regarding the individual's positive affective experiences, (ii) six weeks of ESM without feedback, or (iii) treatment as usual only. Alongside this randomised controlled trial, an economic evaluation was conducted consisting of a cost-effectiveness and a cost-utility analysis, using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as outcome, with willingness-to-pay threshold for a QALY set at €50,000 (based on Dutch guidelines for moderate severe to severe illnesses).
resultsThe economic evaluation showed that ESM-I is an optimal strategy only when willingness to pay is around €3000 per unit HDRS and around €40,500 per QALY. ESM-I was the least favourable treatment when willingness to pay was lower than €30,000 per QALY. However, at the €50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, ESM-I was, with a 46% probability, the most favourable treatment (base-case analysis). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results.
conclusionsWe may tentatively conclude that ESM-I is a cost-effective add-on intervention to pharmacotherapy in outpatients with major depression.
trial registrationNetherlands Trial register, NTR1974 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.