Cited by 91Sleep and related disordersHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeObstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Economic Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) for Improving Health Outcomes in Adult Populations: A Systematic Review

Natsky, Andrea N., Vakulin, Andrew, Chai-Coetzer, Ching L., Lack, Leon, McEvoy, R.D., Lovato, Nicole, Sweetman, Alexander, Gordon, Christopher J. +2 more·2020·Sleep Medicine Reviews

Abstract

Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is a promising intervention with established efficacy, yet evidence of its cost-effectiveness remains unclear. Systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Psychinfo, ProQuest, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Emcare. Titles and abstracts were screened against eligibility criteria, and studies reporting full economic evaluations of CBT-I in adult populations were included and examined in detail. Study characteristics were extracted using a standardised template. Quantitative measures and relevant findings were summarised using a qualitative approach following recommended reporting standards. 1,168 non-duplicate articles were identified, of which 44 were selected for full-text review. Seven full economic evaluations of CBT-I in adult populations met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated in the final synthesis. Using the dominance ranking framework to compare cost and outcomes, CBT-I was cost-effective compared to pharmacotherapy or no treatment. The limited number of studies included in this review implies that caution should be exercised when interpreting these results. Future studies are encouraged to employ longer time-horizons and larger sample sizes to enable better determination of sustained cost and outcomes changes. Prospero registration number: CRD42019133554.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101351

Cites

56 of 56 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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Natsky, A. N., Vakulin, A., Chai-Coetzer, C. L., Lack, L., McEvoy, R. D., Lovato, N., Sweetman, A., Gordon, C. J., Adams, R. J., & Kaambwa, B.
Affiliations
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Natsky, Andrea N.
Venue
Sleep Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
54
Pages
101351
ISSN
1087-0792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3041603375
Cited by
91
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sleep Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, cost-effectiveness, economic evaluation, insomnia, drug therapy comparison, adults, health outcomes
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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