Cited by 98Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Cost-effectiveness and long-term effectiveness of Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy for severe health anxiety

Hedman, E., Andersson, E., Lindefors, N., Andersson, G., Rück, C., Ljótsson, B.·2013·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: Severe health anxiety is a common condition associated with functional disability, making it a costly disorder from a societal perspective. Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) is a promising treatment but no previous study has assessed the cost-effectiveness or long-term outcome of ICBT for severe health anxiety. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness and 1-year treatment effects of ICBT for severe health anxiety. Method: Cost-effectiveness and 1-year follow-up data were obtained from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICBT (n = 40) to an attention control condition (CC,n = 41). The primary outcome measure was the Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI). A societal perspective was taken and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using bootstrap sampling. Results: The main ICER was −£1244, indicating the societal economic gain for each additional case of remission when administering ICBT. Baseline to 1-year follow-up effect sizes on the primary outcome measure were large (d = 1.71–1.95). Conclusions: ICBT is a cost-effective treatment for severe health anxiety that can produce substantial and enduring effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291712001079

Cites

46 of 46 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 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hedman, E., Andersson, E., Lindefors, N., Andersson, G., Rück, C., & Ljótsson, B.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2012-05-21
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
363-374
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2160174449
Cited by
98
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Stockholms Läns Landsting
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, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, cost-effectiveness, long-term treatment outcomes, social costs, Health Anxiety Inventory, remission
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Attitude to Health, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypochondriasis, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Health Care Costs, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Internet

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