We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A randomised controlled trial found that a structured mindfulness group therapy (MGT) programme was as effective as treatment as usual (mostly cognitive–behavioural therapy) for patients with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or stress and adjustment disorders in Sweden (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01476371).
Aims
To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of MGT compared with treatment as usual from both a healthcare and a societal perspective for the trial duration (8 weeks).
Method
The costs from a healthcare perspective included treatment as usual, medication and costs for providing MGT. The societal perspective included costs from the healthcare perspective plus savings from productivity gains for the trial duration. The effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and the UK value set. Uncertainty surrounding the incremental costs and effects were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications and presented with 95% confidence intervals and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
Results
The MGT group had significantly lower healthcare and societal costs (mean differences –€115 (95% CI −193 to −36) and –€112 (95% CI −207 to −17), respectively) compared with the control group. In terms of effectiveness, there was no significant difference in QALY gain (mean difference −0.003, 95% CI −0.0076 to 0.0012) between the two groups.
Conclusions
MGT is a cost-saving alternative to treatment as usual over the trial duration from both a healthcare and a societal perspective for patients with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or stress and adjustment disorders in Sweden.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.