Cited by 100Eating Disorders and BehaviorsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Cost-effectiveness of guided self-help treatment for recurrent binge eating

Open access
Lynch, Frances L., Striegel-Moore, Ruth H., Dickerson, John F., Perrin, Nancy, DeBar, Lynn, Wilson, G. Terence, Kraemer, Helena C.·2010·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Adoption of effective treatments for recurrent binge-eating disorders depends on the balance of costs and benefits. Using data from a recent randomized controlled trial, we conducted an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cognitive-behavioral therapy guided self-help intervention (CBT-GSH) to treat recurrent binge eating compared to treatment as usual (TAU). METHOD: Participants were 123 adult members of an HMO (mean age = 37.2 years, 91.9% female, 96.7% non-Hispanic White) who met criteria for eating disorders involving binge eating as measured by the Eating Disorder Examination (C. G. Fairburn & Z. Cooper, 1993). Participants were randomized either to treatment as usual (TAU) or to TAU plus CBT-GSH. The clinical outcomes were binge-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); total societal cost was estimated using costs to patients and the health plan and related costs. RESULTS: Compared to those receiving TAU only, those who received TAU plus CBT-GSH experienced 25.2 more binge-free days and had lower total societal costs of $427 over 12 months following the intervention (incremental CEA ratio of -$20.23 per binge-free day or -$26,847 per QALY). Lower costs in the TAU plus CBT-GSH group were due to reduced use of TAU services in that group, resulting in lower net costs for the TAU plus CBT group despite the additional cost of CBT-GSH. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support CBT-GSH dissemination for recurrent binge-eating treatment.

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 · 10.1037/a0018982

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • eTherapies have emerged as a preferred guided self-help format, addressing accessibility, scalability, cost, and privacy.

    “eTherapies themselves have emerged as a preferred guided self-help format, their online delivery addressing issues of accessibility, scalability, cost, and privacy (23, 24)”

    From The acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of a supported online self-help treatment program for binge-eating disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    The introductory passage (page not provided) links guided self-help to barriers involving time and cost. But the Method > Intervention describes a book-based program with therapist coaching sessions, not an online eTherapy. The paper does not establish that online delivery is preferred or that it addresses scalability and privacy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The use of other professionals in this role, whilst achieving similar results, supports the utility of BED-targeted eTherapies within a stepped-care model.

    “Given the aspiration of eTherapies to address issues of accessibility, scalability, and cost (11, 23, 24), this study’s use of other professionals in this role, whilst achieving similar results, supports this utility of BED-targeted eTherapies within a stepped-care model.”

    From The acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of a supported online self-help treatment program for binge-eating disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    The citation is attached to the background claim about accessibility, scalability, and cost, not the citing authors’ conclusion about their own study. The source’s Discussion says guided self-help can provide cost-effective care for recurrent binge eating, and its introductory passage identifies barriers to accessing treatment. It does not address eTherapies or establish their scalability. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Sculpher M The role and estimation of productivity costs in economic evaluation 2001 Oxford, England Oxford University
  2. Southard ME Essink-Bot ML Bonsel GJ Disability weights for diseases: A modified protocol and results for a Western European region European Journal of Public Health 2000 10 24 30
  3. Striegel-Moore RH Wilson GT Debar L Perrin N Kramer H Rosselli F Effectiveness of guided self-help for binge eating disorders, results of the BEST study Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (in press)
  4. Wilson GT Wilfley DE Agras W Bryson SW Psychological treatments of binge eating disorder Archives of General Psychiatry (In press) PMC3757519 20048227

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lynch, F. L., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Dickerson, J. F., Perrin, N., DeBar, L., Wilson, G. T., & Kraemer, H. C.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2010
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
322-333
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2115939103
Cited by
100
References
82
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • WESLEYAN
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH066966)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
binge eating, binge eating disorder, guided self-help, cognitive behavioral therapy, cost-effectiveness, social costs, quality-adjusted life years, usual care, health plan costs, treatment dissemination
MeSH terms
Adult, Anorexia Nervosa, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Managed Care Programs, Manuals as Topic, Middle Aged, Self Care, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Cost Savings, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Bulimia Nervosa, Secondary Prevention, Binge-Eating Disorder

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