↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of blended vs. face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy for severe anxiety disorders: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 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 blended vs. face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy for severe anxiety disorders: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0697-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geke Romijn, Heleen Riper, Robin Kok, Tara Donker, Maartje Goorden, Leona Hakkaart van Roijen, Lisa Kooistra, Anton van Balkom, Jeroen Koning

Abstract

Anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent psychiatric conditions, and are associated with poor quality of life and substantial economic burden. Cognitive behavioural therapy is an effective treatment to reduce anxiety symptoms, but is also costly and labour intensive. Cost-effectiveness could possibly be improved by delivering cognitive behavioural therapy in a blended format, where face-to-face sessions are partially replaced by online sessions. The aim of this trial is to determine the cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with anxiety disorders, i.e. panic disorder, social phobia or generalized anxiety disorder, in specialized mental health care settings compared to face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy. In this paper, we present the study protocol. It is hypothesized that blended cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders is clinically as effective as face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy, but that intervention costs may be reduced. We thus hypothesize that blended cognitive behavioural therapy is more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy. In a randomised controlled equivalence trial 156 patients will be included (n = 78 in blended cognitive behavioural therapy, n = 78 in face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy) based on a power of 0.80, calculated by using a formula to estimate the power of a cost-effectiveness analysis: [Formula: see text]. Measurements will take place at baseline, midway treatment (7 weeks), immediately after treatment (15 weeks) and 12-month follow-up. At baseline a diagnostic interview will be administered. Primary clinical outcomes are changes in anxiety symptom severity as measured with the Beck Anxiety Inventory. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated to obtain the costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D (5-level version). Health-economic outcomes will be explored from a societal and health care perspective. This trial will be one of the first to provide information on the cost-effectiveness of blended cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in routine specialized mental health care settings, both from a societal and a health care perspective. Netherlands Trial Register NTR4912 . Registered 13 November 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 208 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 15%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Student > Master 28 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 47 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 95 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Neuroscience 2 <1%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 54 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,309,954
of 24,274,366 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,358
of 5,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,908
of 397,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#44
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,274,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 397,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.