ArticleBJPsych open2025
Cost-utility analysis of adjunctive psychosocial therapies in bipolar disorder.
Article in BJPsych open, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are few economic evaluations of adjunctive psychosocial therapies for bipolar disorder.
aimsEstimate the cost-utility of in-person psychosocial therapies for adults with bipolar disorder added to treatment as usual (TAU), from an Australian Government perspective.
methodWe developed an economic model, estimating costs in 2021 Australian dollars (A$) and outcomes using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. The model compared psychoeducation, brief psychoeducation, carer psychoeducation, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and family therapy when added to TAU (i.e. pharmacotherapy) over a year for adults (18-65 years) with bipolar disorder. The relative risk of relapse was sourced from two network meta-analyses and applied to the depressive phase in the base case. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted, assessing robustness of results.
resultsCarer psychoeducation was preferred in the base case when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold is below A$1000 per QALY gained and A$1500 per DALY averted. Brief psychoeducation was preferred when WTP is between A$1000 and A$300 000 per QALY gained and A$1500 and A$450 000 per DALY averted. Family therapy was only preferred at WTP thresholds above A$300 000 per QALY gained or A$450 000 per DALY averted. In sensitivity analyses, brief psychoeducation was the preferred therapy. Psychoeducation and CBT were dominated (more costly and less effective) in base-case and sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsCarer and brief psychoeducation were found to be the most cost-effective psychosocial therapies, supporting use as adjunctive treatments for adults with bipolar disorder and their families in Australia.
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.