Cost-utility of brief psychological treatment for depression and anxiety.

L. Hakkaart-van Rooijen, A. van Straten, A.L. Maiwenn, F.F.H. Rutten, M. Donker

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

160 Downloads (Pure)


Background The cost-utility of brief therapy compared with cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) and care as usualin the treatment of depression and anxiety has not yet been determined.

Aims To assess the cost-utility of brief therapy compared with CBT and care as usual.

Method A pragmatic randomised controlled trial involving 702 patients was conducted at 7 Dutch mental healthcare centres (MHCs). Patients were interviewed at baseline and then every 3 months over a period of 1.5 years, during which time data were collected on directcosts, indirect costs and quality of life.

Results The mean direct costs of treatment at the MHCs were significantly lower for brief therapy than for CBTand care as usual.However, after factoring in other healthcare costs and indirect costs, no significant differences between the treatment groups could be detected.We found no significant differences in quality-adjusted life-years between the groups.

Conclusions Cost-utility did not differ significantly between the three treatment groups.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)323-329
JournalBritish Journal of Psychiatry
Publication statusPublished - 2006


Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-utility of brief psychological treatment for depression and anxiety.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this