Trial reportBMJ mental health2025
Cost-utility of behavioural activation for mitigating psychological impacts of COVID-19 on socially isolated older adults with depression and multiple long-term conditions compared with usual care: results from a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundDepression alongside multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) in older adults poses a critical public health challenge, worsening physical and mental health and increasing healthcare costs. COVID-19 restrictions further exacerbated these impacts. Behavioural activation (BA) shows promise as a remote intervention for depression during isolation, but its cost-effectiveness for depressed, socially isolated older adults remains uncertain.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the cost-utility of BA versus usual care for older adults with depression and MLTCs during COVID-19 restrictions.
methodsA randomised controlled trial recruited and randomised individuals aged 65 and over with depressive symptoms and MLTC (n=435) to either the BA intervention or usual care. Costs were measured from the perspective of the National Health Service and personal social services. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured using the EQ-5D-3L at baseline, and 1, 3 and 12 months postrandomisation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, with uncertainty addressed through non-parametric bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary analysis.
findingsPrimary analysis indicated that BA generated a small cost-saving (£62.34 per older adult; 95% CI: -£120.44 to £239.70) while QALY improvements remained unchanged (0.007; 95% CI -0.036 to 0.022) compared with usual care. The probability of BA being the preferred option is 0.71. Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis findings, confirming their robustness. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Compared with usual care, BA demonstrated a slight cost reduction while maintaining QALY improvement. The findings provide promise for BA interventions for older people with depression and MLTCs facing isolation.
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.