Cited by 19Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Cost-effectiveness and long-term follow-up of three forms of minimal-contact cognitive behaviour therapy for severe health anxiety: Results from a randomised controlled trial

Axelsson, Erland, Andersson, Erik, Ljótsson, Brjánn, Hedman-Lagerlöf, Erik·2018·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Strategies to increase the availability of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for severe health anxiety (SHA) are needed, and this study investigated the cost-effectiveness and long-term efficacy of three forms of minimal-contact CBT for SHA. We hypothesised that therapist-guided internet CBT (G-ICBT), unguided internet CBT (U-ICBT), and cognitive behavioural bibliotherapy (BIB-CBT) would all be more cost-effective than a waiting-list condition (WLC), as assessed over the main phase of the trial. We also hypothesised that improvements would remain stable up to one-year follow-up. Adults (N = 132) with principal SHA were randomised to 12 weeks of G-ICBT, U-ICBT, BIB-CBT, or WLC. The primary measure of cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, or the between-group difference in per capita costs divided by the between-group difference in proportion of participants in remission. The Health anxiety inventory (HAI) was the primary efficacy outcome. G-ICBT, U-ICBT, and BIB-CBT were more cost-effective than the WLC. Over the follow-up period, the G-ICBT and BIB-CBT groups made further improvements in health anxiety, whereas the U-ICBT group did not change. As expected, all three treatments were cost-effective with persistent long-term effects. CBT without therapist support appears to be a valuable alternative to G-ICBT for scaling up treatment for SHA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2018.06.002

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Axelsson, E., Andersson, E., Ljótsson, B., & Hedman-Lagerlöf, E.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Axelsson, Erland
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
107
Pages
95-105
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808129767
Cited by
19
References
65
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Karolinska Institutet
  • Kommunfullmäktige, Stockholms Stad
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
health anxiety, cognitive behavioral therapy, bibliotherapy, cost-effectiveness, long-term follow-up, remission
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Bibliotherapy, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Waiting Lists, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, 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