Cited by 161Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Cost-of-illness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses in anxiety disorders: A systematic review

Konnopka, Alexander, Leichsenring, Falk, Leibing, Eric, König, Hans-Helmut·2009·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Aims To review cost-of-illness studies (COI) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted for anxiety disorders.Methods Based on a database search in Pubmed, PsychINFO and NHS EED, studies were classified according to various criteria. Cost data were inflated and converted to 2005 US-$ purchasing power parities (PPP).Results We finally identified 20 COI and 11 CEA of which most concentrated on panic disorder (PD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Differing inclusion of cost categories limited comparability of COI. PD and GAD tended to show higher direct costs per case, but lower direct cost per inhabitant than social and specific phobias. Different measures of effectiveness severely limited comparability of CEA. Overall CEA analysed 26 therapeutic or interventional strategies mostly compared to standard treatment, 8 of them resulting in lower better effectiveness and costs than the comparator.Conclusions Anxiety disorders cause considerable costs. More research on phobias, more standardised inclusion of cost categories in COI and a wider use of comparable effectiveness measures (like QALYs) in CEA is needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2008.07.014

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • The preference for VRET over IVET could be associated with barriers inherent to IVET that are not present in VRET, such as lack of confidentiality and limited access to and control of the feared stimulus in animal phobias.

    “This preference for VRET over IVET could be associated with different barriers inherent to IVET that are not present in VRET, such as the lack of confidentiality (especially when conducted outside the clinic) and limited access to and control of the feared stimulus in the case of animal phobias.10 11”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Konnopka, A., Leichsenring, F., Leibing, E., & König, H.-H.
Affiliations
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Konnopka, Alexander
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-04
Volume
114
Issue
1-3
Pages
14-31
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053944890
Cited by
161
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
anxiety disorders, economic burden, cost-effectiveness, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, phobia, direct costs, cost classification, quality-adjusted life years, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Phobic Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Panic Disorder, Treatment Outcome, Cost of Illness

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