Design of Economic Evaluations of Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Ten Methodological Questions of Which to Be Mindful

Cost-effectiveness of providing university students with a mindfulness-based intervention to reduce psychological distress: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Increasing numbers of young people attending university has raised concerns about the capacity of student mental health services to support them. We conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to explore whether provision of an 8 week mindfulness course adapted for university students (Mindfulness Skills for Students-MSS), compared with university mental health support as usual (SAU), reduced psychological distress during the examination period. Here, we conduct an economic evaluation of MSS+SAU compared with SAU.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic, parallel, single-blinded RCT comparing provision of MSS+SAU to SAU.

PARTICIPANTS

616 university students randomised.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the university counselling service. Costs relate to staff time required to deliver counselling service offerings. QALYs were derived from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Dimension 6 Dimension (CORE-6D) preference based tool, which uses responses to six items of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM; primary clinical outcome measure). Primary follow-up duration was 5 and 7 months for the two recruitment cohorts.

RESULTS

It was estimated to cost £1584 (2022 prices) to deliver an MSS course to 30 students, £52.82 per student. Both costs (adjusted mean difference: £48, 95% CI £40-£56) and QALYs (adjusted mean difference: 0.014, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.021) were significantly higher in the MSS arm compared with SAU. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £3355, with a very high (99.99%) probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

MSS leads to significantly improved outcomes at a moderate additional cost. The ICER of £3355 per QALY suggests that MSS is cost-effective when compared with the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds of £20 000 per QALY.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615001160527.

Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

There is growing interest in extending the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year framework beyond health. Using a critical interpretive synthesis approach, the objective was to review peer-reviewed literature that has discussed non-health outcomes within the context of quality-adjusted life-years and synthesise information into a thematic framework. Papers were identified through searches conducted in Web of Science, using forward citation searching. A critical interpretive synthesis allows for the development of interpretations (synthetic constructs) that go beyond those offered in the original sources. The final output of a critical interpretive synthesis is the synthesising argument, which integrates evidence from across studies into a coherent thematic framework. A concept map was developed to show the relationships between different types of non-health benefits. The critical interpretive synthesis was based on 99 papers. The thematic framework was constructed around four themes: (1) benefits affecting well-being (subjective well-being, psychological well-being, capability and empowerment); (2) benefits derived from the process of healthcare delivery; (3) benefits beyond the recipient of care (spillover effects, externalities, option value and distributional benefits); and (4) benefits beyond the healthcare sector. There is a wealth of research concerning non-health benefits and the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year. Further dialogue and debate are necessary to address conceptual and normative challenges, to explore the societal willingness to sacrifice health for benefits beyond health and to consider the equity implications of different courses of action.

Economic evaluation of mindfulness group therapy for patients with depression, anxiety, stress and adjustment disorders compared with treatment as usual

BACKGROUND

A randomised controlled trial found that a structured mindfulness group therapy (MGT) programme was as effective as treatment as usual (mostly cognitive-behavioural therapy) for patients with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or stress and adjustment disorders in Sweden (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01476371).

AIMS

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of MGT compared with treatment as usual from both a healthcare and a societal perspective for the trial duration (8 weeks).

METHOD

The costs from a healthcare perspective included treatment as usual, medication and costs for providing MGT. The societal perspective included costs from the healthcare perspective plus savings from productivity gains for the trial duration. The effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and the UK value set. Uncertainty surrounding the incremental costs and effects were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications and presented with 95% confidence intervals and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

The MGT group had significantly lower healthcare and societal costs (mean differences -€115 (95% CI -193 to -36) and -€112 (95% CI -207 to -17), respectively) compared with the control group. In terms of effectiveness, there was no significant difference in QALY gain (mean difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.0076 to 0.0012) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MGT is a cost-saving alternative to treatment as usual over the trial duration from both a healthcare and a societal perspective for patients with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or stress and adjustment disorders in Sweden.

Cost-utility of individual internet-based and face-to-face Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy compared with treatment as usual in reducing psychological distress in cancer patients

Objective

It was previously determined that group‐based face‐to‐face Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and individual internet‐based MBCT (eMBCT) are equally efficacious compared with treatment as usual (TAU) in reducing psychological distress. In this study, the incremental cost‐utility of both interventions compared with TAU was assessed.

Methods

This cost‐utility study included 245 self‐referred heterogeneous cancer patients with psychological distress who were randomized to MBCT, eMBCT or TAU. Healthcare costs and (informal) work‐related productivity losses were assessed by interview. Outcomes were expressed in EuroQol‐5D‐3L utility scores and quality‐adjusted life years (QALY). An economic evaluation with a time‐horizon of 3 months was conducted from the societal perspective in the intention‐to‐treat sample. In addition, secondary explorative analyses of costs and quality of life during the 9‐month follow‐up were conducted based on linear extrapolation of TAU.

Results

Paid work‐related productivity losses and societal costs were lower in both intervention conditions compared with TAU during the 3‐month intervention period. Moreover, quality of life (utility scores) improved in eMBCT versus TAU (Cohen's d: .54) and MBCT versus TAU (.53). At a willingness to pay of €20000 per QALY, the mean incremental net monetary benefit was €1916 (SD=€783) in eMBCT and €2365 (SD=€796) in MBCT versus TAU. Exploration of costs demonstrated an equal pattern of eMBCT and MBCT being superior to TAU. Quality of life at 9‐month follow‐up remained improved in both interventions.

Conclusions

Results indicate that eMBCT and MBCT are cost‐saving treatments whilst simultaneously improving quality of life for distressed cancer patients.

Are acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions 'value for money'? Evidence from a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

Acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions (A/MBIs) are recommended for people with mental health conditions. Although there is a growing evidence base supporting the effectiveness of different A/MBIs for mental health conditions, the economic case for these interventions has not been fully explored. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and appraise all available economic evidence of A/MBIs for the management of mental health conditions.

METHODS

Eight electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and EconLit) were searched for relevant economic evaluations published from each database's inception date until November 2017. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were carried out according to published guidelines.

RESULTS

Ten relevant economic evaluations presented in 11 papers were identified. Seven of the included studies were full economic evaluations (i.e., costs and effects assessed), and three studies were partial economic evaluations (i.e., only costs were considered in the analysis). The A/MBIs that had been subjected to economic evaluation were acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). In terms of clinical presentations, the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of A/MBIs has been more focused on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder with three and four economic evaluations, respectively. Three out of seven full economic evaluations observed that A/MBIs were cost-effective for the management of mental health conditions. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of included populations, interventions, and economic evaluation study types limits the extent to which firm conclusions can currently be made.

CONCLUSION

This first substantive review of economic evaluations of A/MBIs indicates that more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the cost-effectiveness of A/MBIs for mental health conditions.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

The findings of the review provide information that may be relevant to mental health service commissioners and decision-makers as all economic evidence available on acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions for mental health conditions is summarized. Evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions is focused mainly on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder to date. Heterogeneity in the specific forms of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions may limit generalizability of the findings. The number of health economic evaluations relating to acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions remains relatively small. Further research in this area is required.

Economic Impact of Third-Wave Cognitive Behavioral Therapies: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Economic Evaluations in Randomized Controlled Trials

The term third-wave cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) encompasses new forms of CBT that both extend and innovate within CBT. Most third-wave therapies have been subject to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on clinical effectiveness; however, the number and quality of economic evaluations in these RCTs has been unknown and may be few. Evidence about efficiency of these therapies may help support decisions on efficient allocation of resources in health policies. The main aim of this study was to systematically review the economic impact of third-wave therapies in the treatment of patients with physical or mental conditions. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINALH to identify economic evaluations of third-wave therapies. Quality and Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment of economic evaluations was also made using the Drummond 35-item checklist and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, respectively. Eleven RCTs were included in this systematic review. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), and extended Behaviour Activation (eBA) showed acceptable cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios. No study employed a time horizon of more than 3 years. Quality and RoB assessments highlight some limitations that temper the findings. There is some evidence that MBCT, MBSR, ACT, DBT, and eBA are efficient from a societal or a third-party payer perspective. No economic analysis was found for many third-wave therapies. Therefore, more economic evaluations with high methodological quality are needed.

Can a mindfulness-informed intervention reduce aggressive behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities? Protocol for a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10-20 % of adults with intellectual disabilities engage in challenging behaviours such as aggression, destructiveness, and self-injury, which are often accompanied by feelings of anger. The inability to manage anger can reduce quality of life. For example, aggression is a strong predictor of out-of-area placements and is a risk variable for abuse. Recent research suggests that mindfulness-based therapies (specifically, Singh's Soles of the Feet meditation) can help people with intellectual disabilities manage angry emotions, with resultant reductions in challenging behaviour. However, previous research has been single-case design studies, and no group studies have been published with people with intellectual disabilities and aggressive behaviour.

METHODS/DESIGN

For this feasibility study, a UK protocol will be developed for use by health professionals within National Health Service (NHS) Intellectual Disability (ID) teams, based upon Singh's Soles of the Feet manual. Twenty adults with intellectual disabilities and identified problems with anger control will be recruited and six sessions will be delivered by a trained ID clinician. The study will monitor participant's aggressive behaviour, health-related quality of life, anxiety, depression, and use of support services (medication, hospital appointments etc.). These will be measured at three time points: (1) Baseline (within 2 weeks prior to the first session of the intervention), (2) 2 months post-baseline, and (3) 6 months post-baseline. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants, their carers, and the therapists who delivered the intervention. In order to help design an economic evaluation alongside a future full trial, we will cost the intervention and test the acceptability and validity of health economics measures to record resource use and health-related quality of life outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The data from this study will inform the feasibility of the project protocol and intervention, which will help develop future research and to determine whether a larger, randomised controlled trial with concurrent economic evaluation is feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UKCERN: 16743.

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for recurrent major depression: A 'best buy' for health care?

OBJECTIVE

While mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is effective in reducing depressive relapse/recurrence, relatively little is known about its health economic properties. We describe the health economic properties of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in relation to its impact on depressive relapse/recurrence over 2 years of follow-up.

METHOD

Non-depressed adults with a history of three or more major depressive episodes were randomised to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy + depressive relapse active monitoring (n = 101) or control (depressive relapse active monitoring alone) (n = 102) and followed up for 2 years. Structured self-report instruments for service use and absenteeism provided cost data items for health economic analyses. Treatment utility, expressed as disability-adjusted life years, was calculated by adjusting the number of days an individual was depressed by the relevant International Classification of Diseases 12-month severity of depression disability weight from the Global Burden of Disease 2010. Intention-to-treat analysis assessed the incremental cost-utility ratios of the interventions across mental health care, all of health-care and whole-of-society perspectives. Per protocol and site of usual care subgroup analyses were also conducted. Probabilistic uncertainty analysis was completed using cost-utility acceptability curves.

RESULTS

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy participants had significantly less major depressive episode days compared to controls, as supported by the differential distributions of major depressive episode days (modelled as Poisson, p < 0.001). Average major depressive episode days were consistently less in the mindfulness-based cognitive therapy group compared to controls, e.g., 31 and 55 days, respectively. From a whole-of-society perspective, analyses of patients receiving usual care from all sectors of the health-care system demonstrated dominance (reduced costs, demonstrable health gains). From a mental health-care perspective, the incremental gain per disability-adjusted life year for mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was AUD83,744 net benefit, with an overall annual cost saving of AUD143,511 for people in specialist care.

CONCLUSION

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy demonstrated very good health economic properties lending weight to the consideration of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy provision as a good buy within health-care delivery.