ArticleInternet interventions2022
Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial of blended cognitive-behavioral therapy for patients suffering from major depressive disorder.
Article in Internet interventions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness Between Digital Health Interventions and Pharmacotherapy for Depression: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- The present and future of blended care: current research and introduction to the B-FIT framework.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Patient and Therapist Expectations for a Blended Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Program for Depression: Qualitative Exploratory Study.JMIR mental health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) compared to standard CBT for adult patients suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD).
designA cost-utility analysis alongside the randomized controlled ENTER trial.
settingCenter for Telepsychiatry, Mental Health Services in the Region of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
participantsThe study included 76 patients suffering from MDD.
interventionsThe patients in the intervention group received blended CBT treatment comprising a combination of online modules and face-to-face consultations with a psychologist. The patients in the control group received standard CBT treatment, that is, solely face-to-face consultations with a psychologist. The treatment period was 12 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness was reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A micro-costing approach was applied to evaluate the savings derived. Changes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using the EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels questionnaire at the baseline and the six-month follow-up.
resultsData for 74 patients were included in the primary analysis. The adjusted QALY difference between blended CBT and standard CBT was -0.0291 (95% CI: -0.0535 to -0.0047), and the adjusted difference in costs was -£226.32 (95% CI: -300.86 to -151.77). Blended CBT was estimated to have a 6.6% and 3.1% probability of being cost-effective based on thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000.
conclusionCompared to standard CBT, blended CBT represents a cost-saving but also a loss in QALYs for patients suffering from MDD. However, results should be carefully interpreted, given the small sample size. Future research involving larger replication studies focusing on other aspects of blended CBT with more patient involvement is advised. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrial.gov: S-20150150.
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.