↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) compared to supportive listening (SL) for adjustment to multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 488)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) compared to supportive listening (SL) for adjustment to multiple sclerosis
Published in
Health Economics Review, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0172-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Mosweu, R. Moss-Morris, L. Dennison, T. Chalder, P. McCrone

Abstract

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) reduces distress in multiple sclerosis, and helps manage adjustment, but cost-effectiveness evidence is lacking. An economic evaluation was conducted within a multi-centre trial. 94 patients were randomised to either eight sessions of nurse-led CBT or supportive listening (SL). Costs were calculated from the health, social and indirect care perspectives, and combined with additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or improvement on the GHQ-12 score, to explore cost-effectiveness at 12 months. CBT had higher mean health costs (£1610, 95% CI, -£187 to 3771) and slightly better QALYs (0.0053, 95% CI, -0.059 to 0.103) compared to SL but these differences were not statistically significant. This yielded £301,509 per QALY improvement, indicating that CBT is not cost-effective according to established UK NHS thresholds. The extra cost per patient improvement on the GHQ-12 scale was £821 from the same perspective. Using a £20,000, threshold, CBT in this format has a 9% probability of being cost effective. Although subgroup analysis of patients with clinical levels of distress at baseline showed an improvement in the position of CBT compared to SL, CBT was still not cost-effective. Nurse delivered CBT is more effective in reducing distress among MS patients compared to SL, but is highly unlikely to be cost-effective using a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D). Results from a disease-specific measure (GHQ-12) produced comparatively lower Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios, but there is currently no acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold for this measure to guide decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Unspecified 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Unspecified 5 7%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,205,958
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#37
of 488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,677
of 330,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.