A systematic review and economic evaluation of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety.
E. Kaltenthaler,P. Shackley,K. Stevens,Catherine Beverley,G. Parry,J. Chilcott
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/HTA6220
IF: 4.106
2002-10-29
Health Technology Assessment
Abstract:Background:
Most patients suffering from depression,
anxiety and phobias are treated within the
primary care setting, although many patients
do not seek help or their condition is not recognised
by healthcare professionals. Medication
is usually the first treatment offered but this
is often associated with side-effects. There is
substantial evidence to support the use of cognitive
behaviour therapy (CBT) in the treatment
of these disorders. However, access is limited
due to too few therapists, expense, waiting lists,
and patients’ reluctance to enter therapy. Computerised
cognitive behaviour therapy (CCBT)
is a self-help option that offers patients the
potential benefits of CBT with less
therapist involvement.
Objective:
The overall aim of the review was to assess
the clinical effectiveness of CCBT for treating
anxiety, depression and phobias and to compare
the cost-effectiveness of CCBT with CBT by
conventional methods and with treatment
as usual (TAU).
Methods:
A systematic review of the literature was performed
to identify all studies describing trials
of CCBT either delivered alone or as part of a
package and either via a computer interface
or over the telephone with a computer-led
response. Databases were searched from
1966 to September 2001.
The cost-effectiveness review was divided into
two parts: the economic evidence on CCBT was
reviewed, and a modelling exercise was undertaken
with the aim of estimating the cost per
year of providing CCBT and the number of
patients that could be treated. An attempt was
also made to estimate the effect of CCBT in
terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
Results:
Number and quality of studies:
Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Of
these, 11 were randomised controlled trials
(RCTs) and five were pilot studies or cohort
studies. The quality of the studies ranged from
poor to moderate. An additional three studies
were identified that dealt with the use of CCBT
as a treatment adjunct for therapist-led
CBT (TCBT).
Thirteen papers were identified for the
cost-effectiveness review although none dealt
specifically with CCBT. Four sponsor submissions
were used in the cost-effectiveness analysis
including Ultrasis (Beating the Blues), Leeds
Innovations (Calipso), University of Glasgow
(Stresspac) and ST Solutions (FearFighter
and Cope).
Clinical effectiveness:
The results can be summarised as follows.
• There is some evidence of poor-to-moderate
quality that CCBT is as effective as TCBT in
clinically depressed, anxious or phobic
outpatient and primary care populations.
• There is limited evidence of poor-to-moderate
quality that CCBT is more effective than TAU
in clinically depressed, anxious or phobic
outpatient and primary care populations.
• CCBT may be as effective or less effective
than bibliotherapy. There is no evidence that
CCBT is more effective than bibliotherapy.
• In studies reporting accurate estimates of
therapist time, CCBT appears to reduce therapist
time compared with TCBT and is therefore of
use where access to TCBT is limited.
• CCBT may form a useful component of a
stepped-care programme, being one of the
options offered to patients as a first-line
treatment approach.
• There is evidence to support the effectiveness
of Beating the Blues and FearFighter.
Cost-effectiveness:
No studies performed an economic analysis of
CCBT. Therefore the only available economic
evidence was provided by the four sponsor submissions. These were critically reviewed and
data from them used in a modelling exercise.
• CCBT using Stresspac was found to cost more,
but was no better in terms of patient outcomes
than TAU.
• The cost per patient of Cope was less than the
corresponding costs for CBT and drug therapy.
• CCBT using FearFighter was stated to be less
costly than CBT and drug therapy.
• There was insufficient data in the Calipso
submission to make any judgement regarding
the efficiency of Calipso relative to alternative
treatment options.
• The results of the economic analysis of CCBT
using Beating the Blues indicated that compared
with TAU, Beating the Blues is a costeffective
strategy for treating patients with
anxiety and depression. The economic analysis
presented in this submission is the most
rigorous of all the submissions.
Modelling:
Under baseline assumptions, the cost in the first
year of implementing Beating the Blues with an
assistant psychologist is £21,691. If a practice nurse
is used, the cost is £25,192. The corresponding
costs for Stresspac and FearFighter are £19,902
and £22,574, respectively.
Under baseline assumptions, Beating the Blues
with an assistant psychologist was estimated to
cost £275 million in England and £13 million
in Wales. If a practice nurse is used, the corresponding
costs were £237 million in England and
£11 million in Wales. The costs for Stresspac
were estimated to be £206 million in England
and £10 million in Wales.
In view of the data deficiencies and the large
number of assumptions made, all the model
estimates should be treated with caution.
Cost per QALY:
Based on a number of assumptions, one set of
data suggest that the incremental cost per QALY
gained of Beating the Blues over TAU lies between
£1209.68 and £7692.30. If the data from another
data set are used, the corresponding range lies
between £3000 and £6667 per QALY gained. It
should be stated once again, however, that these
estimates are crude and should be treated
with caution.
Conclusions:
There is limited evidence of poor-to-moderate
quality that CCBT may be effective in the treatment
of depression, anxiety and phobias. The evidence
for CCBT is uncertain as the studies varied
widely in setting, patient populations, comparators
and outcome measures. Further research is
needed in order to answer the many questions
surrounding the design and implementation
of CCBT programmes.
Recommendations for further research:
• Studies are needed to determine the level
of therapist involvement needed to produce
optimal outcomes for patients using
CCBT programmes.
• Studies need to be undertaken within the
general practice setting.
• Efforts should be made to include patients with
co-morbidities routinely treated within general
practictioner care.
• The position of CCBT within a stepped-care
programme needs to be identified as well as
its relationship to other efforts to increase
access to CBT and psychological therapies.
• Appropriate comparison groups must be
included in studies, such as bibliotherapy and
other self-help approaches to treatment that
reduce therapist time.
Other important research issues include the
inclusion of patients from a variety of socioeconomic
and ethnic backgrounds, different age
groups and both males and females. Co-morbidity
and medication need to be taken into account in
trial design. Also further research is needed to
ensure patients who cannot currently access
services because they are housebound may
benefit from CCBT.
Study design issues include the need for independent
researchers, the need for good quality
RCTs of adequate power using appropriate comparison
groups and well-validated outcome measures.
Components of CCBT packages that warrant
further research are the type and amount of CBT
material to incorporate, length and frequency of
sessions, amount of homework and the appropriate
software and computer interface necessary for
most effective usage. Readability and legibility of
CCBT materials must also be taken into account.