Cited by 31Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDigital Mental Health InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

A guided and unguided internet- and mobile-based intervention for chronic pain: health economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Paganini, Sarah, Lin, Jiaxi, Kählke, Fanny, Buntrock, Claudia, Leiding, Delia, Ebert, David D, Baumeister, Harald·2019·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective This study aims at evaluating the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a guided and unguided internet-based intervention for chronic pain patients (ACTonPain guided and ACTonPain unguided ) compared with a waitlist control group (CG) as well as the comparative cost-effectiveness of the guided and the unguided version. Design This is a health economic evaluation alongside a three-arm randomised controlled trial from a societal perspective. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 9 weeks and 6 months after randomisation. Setting Participants were recruited through online and offline strategies and in collaboration with a health insurance company. Participants 302 adults (≥18 years, pain for at least 6 months) were randomly allocated to one of the three groups (ACTonPain guided , ACTonPain unguided , CG). Interventions ACTonPain consists of seven modules and is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. ACTonPain guided and ACTonPain unguided only differ in provision of human support. Primary and secondary outcome measures Main outcomes of the cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility analyses were meaningful change in pain interference (treatment response) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. Economic evaluation estimates were the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio (ICER/ICUR). Results At 6-month follow-up, treatment response and QALYs were highest in ACTonPain guided (44% and 0.280; mean costs = €6,945), followed by ACTonPain unguided (28% and 0.266; mean costs = €6,560) and the CG (16% and 0.244; mean costs = €6,908). ACTonPain guided vs CG revealed an ICER of €45 and an ICUR of €604.ACTonPain unguided dominated CG. At a willingness-to-pay of €0 the probability of being cost-effective was 50% for ACTonPain guided (vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained) and 67% for ACTonPain unguided (vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained). These probabilities rose to 95% when society’s willingness-to-pay is €91,000 (ACTonPain guided ) and €127,000 (ACTonPain unguided ) per QALY gained. ACTonPain guided vs ACTonPain unguided revealed an ICER of €2,374 and an ICUR of €45,993. Conclusions Depending on society’s willingness-to-pay, ACTonPain is a potentially cost-effective adjunct to established pain treatment. ACTonPain unguided (vs CG) revealed lower costs at better health outcomes. However, uncertainty has to be considered. Direct comparison of the two interventions does not indicate a preference for ACTonPain guided . Trial registration number DRKS00006183.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023390

Cites

71 of 71 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?

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paganini, S., Lin, J., Kählke, F., Buntrock, C., Leiding, D., Ebert, D. D., & Baumeister, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
Paganini, Sarah
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-04
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
e023390
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2938238472
Cited by
31
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
chronic pain, acceptance and commitment therapy, online intervention, mobile-based interventions, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility analysis, pain interference, quality-adjusted life years, health economic evaluation, waitlist control, societal perspective, willingness to pay, treatment response, cost-effectiveness acceptability
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Waiting Lists, Logistic Models, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Internet, Chronic Pain, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

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