4.3 Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Guided Self-Help Treatment for Recurrent Binge Eating

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 3, Pages 322-333

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0018982

Keywords

cost-effectiveness analysis; binge eating; cognitive behavior therapy; guided self-help; evidence-based treatment programs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Adoption of effective treatments for recurrent binge-eating disorders depends on the balance of costs and benefits. Using data from a recent randomized controlled trial, we conducted an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cognitive behavioral therapy guided self-help intervention (CBT-GSH) to treat recurrent binge eating compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Method: Participants were 123 adult members of an HMO (mean age = 37.2 years, 91.9% female, 96.7% non-Hispanic White) who met criteria for eating disorders involving binge eating as measured by the Eating Disorder Examination (C. G. Fairborn & Z. Cooper, 1993). Participants were randomized either to treatment as usual (TAU) or to TAU plus CBT-GSH. The clinical outcomes were binge-free days and qualityadjusted life years (QALYs); total societal cost was estimated using costs to patients and the health plan and related costs. Results: Compared to those receiving TAU only, those who received TAU plus CBT-GSH experienced 25.2 more binge-free days and had lower total societal costs of $427 over 12 months following the intervention (incremental CEA ratio of -$20.23 per binge-free day or -$26,847 per QALY). Lower costs in the TAU plus CBT-GSH group were due to reduced use of TAU services in that group, resulting in lower net costs for the TAU plus CBT group despite the additional cost of CBT-GSH. Conclusions: Findings support CBT-GSH dissemination for recurrent binge-eating treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available