ArticleBMC public health2019
Cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness-based mental health promotion program: economic evaluation of a nonrandomized controlled trial with propensity score matching.
Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness evidence of mental health prevention and promotion interventions: A systematic review of economic evaluations.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Health economic evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention in Germany: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- From Computation to Clinic.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2023Review
- Mindfulness as a Protective Factor Against Increased Tobacco and Alcohol Use in Hospital Workers Following the First COVID-19-Related Lockdown: a Study in Southern France.International journal of mental health and addiction · 2022Article
- Review
- Socio-economic consequences of mental distress: quantifying the impact of self-reported mental distress on the days of incapacity to work and medical costs in a two-year period: a longitudinal study in Germany.BMC public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMental health promotion programs have been shown to reduce the burden associated with mental distress and prevent the onset of mental disorders, but evidence of cost-effectiveness is scarce.
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness-based mental health prevention program provided by health coaches in a multi-site field setting in Germany.
methodsThe single-study based economic evaluation was conducted as part of a nonrandomized controlled trial, comparing the effects of a group-based prevention program to usual care based on propensity score matching. Participants (N = 1166) were recruited via a large statutory health insurance fund. Health outcome was assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Cost outcomes were actually incurred costs compiled from the health insurance' records. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were analyzed from a societal and a health care perspective for a 12-month time horizon with sampling uncertainty being handled using nonparametric bootstrapping. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was graphed to determine the probability of cost-effectiveness at different willingness-to-pay ceiling ratios.
resultsFrom a societal perspective, prevention was cost-effective compared to usual-care by providing larger effects of 1.97 units on the HADS (95% CI [1.14, 2.81], p < 0.001) at lower mean incremental total costs of €-57 (95% CI [- 634, 480], p = 0.84), yielding an ICER of €-29 (savings) per unit improvement. From a health care perspective, the incremental health benefits were achieved at additional direct costs of €181 for prevention participants (95% CI [40, 318], p = 0.01) with an ICER of €91 per unit improvement on the HADS. Willingness-to-pay for the prevention program to achieve a 95% probability of being cost-effective compared to usual-care, was estimated at €225 per unit improvement on the HADS score from a societal, and €191 from a health care perspective respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested differential cost-effect-ratios depending on the initial distress of participants. LIMITATIONS: Due to the complexity of the field trial, it was not feasible to randomize participants and offer an active control condition. This limitation was met by applying a rigorous matching procedure.
conclusionsOur results indicate that universal mental health promotion programs in community settings might be a cost-effective strategy to enhance well-being. Differences between the societal and health care perspective underline the call for joint funding in the dissemination of preventive services.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Registration ID: DRKS00006216 (2014/06/11, retrospective registration).
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.