ArticleJournal of health economics and outcomes research2026
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Early Intervention for Psychosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Journal of health economics and outcomes research, 2026. 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.
- Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Early Intervention for Psychosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early intervention for psychosis (EIP) is a multidisciplinary service that treats individuals experiencing early psychosis. Treatment often consists of pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp). While EIP demonstrates clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness as a comprehensive package, the incremental contribution of its individual components remains unclear. With mental health services facing sustained funding pressures, understanding which EIP elements offer value for money is crucial for resource allocation decisions. Objectives: To evaluate whether CBTp used in conjunction with pharmacotherapy in EIP is cost-effective compared with pharmacotherapy alone. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a cohort-based Markov model from the societal perspective over a 3-year time horizon. Model parameters were derived from a targeted literature review. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis identified influential parameters and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) quantified uncertainty around the ICER. Results: CBTp as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy resulted in a gain of 0.48 QALYs in the base case compared with pharmacotherapy alone. The corresponding ICER was £32 979 per QALY gained. This currently sits above the conventional upper willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis identified cost parameters and utility parameters for symptom-free status as the most influential variables on the ICER. PSA showed that CBTp had approximately a 50% probability of being cost-effective at the £30 000 threshold. Conclusions: Parameter uncertainty, particularly regarding costs and health utilities, drives the marginal cost-effectiveness case for CBTp. The intervention's proximity to conventional thresholds suggests targeted improvements in service delivery or patient selection could enhance value. CBTp could potentially be a cost-effective adjunct to pharmacotherapy in EIP; however, there is uncertainty around the results of this modeling. These findings support the targeted implementation of CBTp within EIP. Further high-quality long-term studies are recommended to strengthen the evidence base.
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.