A guided and unguided internet- and mobile-based intervention for chronic pain: health economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 30967405.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023390 and PMC identifier 6500312.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
This study aims at evaluating the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a guided and unguided internet-based intervention for chronic pain patients (ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub> and ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub>) compared with a waitlist control group (CG) as well as the comparative cost-effectiveness of the guided and the unguided version. This is a health economic evaluation alongside a three-arm randomised controlled trial from a societal perspective. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 9 weeks and 6 months after randomisation. Participants were recruited through online and offline strategies and in collaboration with a health insurance company. 302 adults (≥18 years, pain for at least 6 months) were randomly allocated to one of the three groups (ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub>, ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub>, CG). ACTonPain consists of seven modules and is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub> and ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub> only differ in provision of human support. Main outcomes of the cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility analyses were meaningful change in pain interference (treatment response) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. Economic evaluation estimates were the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio (ICER/ICUR). At 6-month follow-up, treatment response and QALYs were highest in ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub> (44% and 0.280; mean costs = €6,945), followed by ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub> (28% and 0.266; mean costs = €6,560) and the CG (16% and 0.244; mean costs = €6,908). ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub> vs CG revealed an ICER of €45 and an ICUR of €604.ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub> dominated CG. At a willingness-to-pay of €0 the probability of being cost-effective was 50% for ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub> (vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained) and 67% for ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub> (vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained). These probabilities rose to 95% when society's willingness-to-pay is €91,000 (ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub>) and €127,000 (ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub>) per QALY gained. ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub> vs ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub> revealed an ICER of €2,374 and an ICUR of €45,993. Depending on society's willingness-to-pay, ACTonPain is a potentially cost-effective adjunct to established pain treatment. ACTonPain<sub>unguided</sub> (vs CG) revealed lower costs at better health outcomes. However, uncertainty has to be considered. Direct comparison of the two interventions does not indicate a preference for ACTonPain<sub>guided</sub>. DRKS00006183.
Medical subject headings
- Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
- Chronic Pain
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Internet