ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2023
Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Healthy Adults.
Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.