Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35748112›Full record

Trial reportThe International journal of eating disorders2022

Cost-effectiveness of three internet-based interventions for eating disorders: A randomized controlled trial.

Pieter J Rohrbach, Alexandra E Dingemans, Eric F van Furth, Philip Spinhoven, Joost R van Ginkel, Stephanie Bauer, M Elske van den Akker-Van Marle

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The International journal of eating disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Design, Implement, Sustain: Advancing Program-Led Interventions for Binge Eating, a Narrative Review.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2026
    Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Pieter J RohrbachGGZ Rivierduinen Eetstoornissen Ursula, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0795-466X
Alexandra E DingemansGGZ Rivierduinen Eetstoornissen Ursula, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5499-7139
Eric F van FurthGGZ Rivierduinen Eetstoornissen Ursula, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1131-0886
Philip SpinhovenDepartment of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4117-335X
Joost R van GinkelInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4137-0943
Stephanie BauerCenter for Psychotherapy Research, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7508-6521
M Elske van den Akker-Van MarleDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Section Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5269-509X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe primary aim was assessing the cost-effectiveness of an internet-based self-help program, expert-patient support, and the combination of both compared to a care-as-usual condition.

methodAn economic evaluation from a societal perspective was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. Participants aged 16 or older with at least mild eating disorder symptoms were randomly assigned to four conditions: (1) Featback, an online unguided self-help program, (2) chat or e-mail support from a recovered expert patient, (3) Featback with expert-patient support, and (4) care-as-usual. After a baseline assessment and intervention period of 8 weeks, five online assessments were conducted over 12 months of follow-up. The main result constituted cost-utility acceptability curves with quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs over the entire study duration.

resultsNo significant differences between the conditions were found regarding QALYs, health care costs and societal costs. Nonsignificant differences in QALYs were in favor of the Featback conditions and the lowest societal costs per participant were observed in the Featback only condition (€16,741) while the highest costs were seen in the care-as-usual condition (€28,479). The Featback only condition had the highest probability of being efficient compared to the alternatives for all acceptable willingness-to-pay values. DISCUSSION: Featback, an internet-based unguided self-help intervention, was likely to be efficient compared to Featback with guidance from an expert patient, guidance alone and a care-as-usual condition. Results suggest that scalable interventions such as Featback may reduce health care costs and help individuals with eating disorders that are currently not reached by other forms of treatment. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Internet-based interventions for eating disorders might reach individuals in society who currently do not receive appropriate treatment at low costs. Featback, an online automated self-help program for eating disorders, was found to improve quality of life slightly while reducing costs for society, compared to a do-nothing approach. Consequently, implementing internet-based interventions such as Featback likely benefits both individuals suffering from an eating disorder and society as a whole.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersInternet-Based InterventionCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansInternetQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of Lifecost-benefit analysiscost-effectivenesseating disorderseconomic evaluationeHealthexpert patientinternet-based interventionquality of liferandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID35748112
PMCPMC9546196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.