Cited by 25Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMental Health Treatment and Access

Economic evaluation of brief cognitive behavioral therapy vs treatment as usual for suicidal US army soldiers

Open access
Bernecker, Samantha L., Zuromski, Kelly L., Curry, Justin C., Kim, Jane J., Gutierrez, Peter M., Joiner, Thomas E., Kessler, Ronald C., Nock, Matthew K. +2 more·2020·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

Importance: Brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) is a clinically effective intervention for reducing risk of suicide attempts among suicidal US Army soldiers. However, because specialized treatments can be resource intensive, more information is needed on costs and benefits of BCBT compared with existing treatments. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BCBT compared with treatment as usual for suicidal soldiers in the US Army. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytic model compared effects and costs of BCBT vs treatment as usual from a US Department of Defense (DoD) perspective. Model input data were drawn from epidemiologic data sets and a clinical trial among suicidal soldiers conducted from January 31, 2011, to April 3, 2014. Data were analyzed from July 3, 2018, to March 25, 2019. Interventions: The strategies compared were treatment as usual alone vs treatment as usual plus 12 individual BCBT sessions. Treatment as usual could include a range of pharmacologic and psychological treatment options. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs in 2017 US dollars, suicide attempts averted (self-directed behavior with intent to die, but with nonfatal outcome), suicide deaths averted, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, assuming a 2-year time horizon for treatment differences but including lifetime costs. Results: In the base-case analysis, BCBT was expected to avert approximately 23 to 25 more suicide attempts and 1 to 3 more suicide deaths per 100 patients treated than treatment as usual. Sensitivity analyses assuming a range of treatment effects showed BCBT to be cost saving in most scenarios. Using the federal discount rate, the DoD was estimated to save from $15 000 to $16 630 per patient with BCBT vs treatment as usual. In a worst-case scenario (ie, assuming the weakest plausible BCBT effect sizes), BCBT cost an additional $1910 to $2250 per patient compared with treatment as usual. Conclusions and Relevance: Results suggest BCBT may be a cost-saving intervention for suicidal active-duty soldiers. The costs of ensuring treatment fidelity would also need to be considered when assessing the implications of disseminating BCBT across the entire DoD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3639

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 25

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mancha B, Abdur-Rahman I, Mitchell T, et al. Mortality Surveillance in the US Army 2005-2014. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Public Health Center; 2016:0034370-14.

Authors
Bernecker, S. L., Zuromski, K. L., Curry, J. C., Kim, J. J., Gutierrez, P. M., Joiner, T. E., Kessler, R. C., Nock, M. K., Rudd, M. D., & Bryan, C. J.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Defense Health Agency (US)
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Bernecker, Samantha L.
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2020-03-01
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
256
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2991522945
Cited by
25
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH087981)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
brief cognitive behavioral therapy, suicide prevention, military personnel, cost-effectiveness, usual care, active duty military personnel, United States Army, decision-analytic model, intervention fidelity
MeSH terms
Suicide, Completed, Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Military Personnel, Psychotherapy, Brief, Suicide, Attempted, United States, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Health Care Costs, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review