Yes! We presented some of our most recent work and findings at the 2018 conference of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT) in Washington, DC. Here’s the program entries for our symposium:
(Symposium 95) Adding to the CBT Evidence Database: Including Costs, and Benefits, for Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analyses
Saturday, November 17, 20181:45 PM - 3:15 PMRoom: Virginia B, Lobby Level
Brian T. Yates, Ph.D.
Alexis N. French, M.A. - American University
Corinne Kacmarek, M.A. - American University
Lana Wald, Ph.D. - Program Evaluation Research Lab, American University
Michael C. Freed, Ph.D. - National Institute of Mental Health (Discussant)
Including costs and benefits in research on CBT and alternative treatments provides empirical, quantitative, and comprehensive answers to the increasingly common questions of not only “Does it work?” but “How much does it cost?” and “Is it worth it?”
This symposium provides solutions to these problems by illustrating how to assess costs, benefits, and more socially meaningful outcomes in CBT and other treatments using real data collected in federally-funded field study and two randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
The first presentation introduces attendees to terms and methods of cost-inclusive research by a seasoned researcher who has published extensively in the area.
The second presentation describes how a CBT program for enhancing parenting skills was delivered in clinics, as had been the norm, and in homes, as had been an emerging practice for clients who were challenging to engage. Providers perceived their costs home training to be higher than clinic training, but clients saw costs of receiving training in their homes as lower than receiving the same training in clinics. Who is right and which delivery site generates the better outcomes, as well as the lower costs for society, are questions that pivot on which stakeholder perspective is emphasized in costing methods.
Computer programs have been used as adjuncts or alternatives to in-person eclectic therapy for significant health, mental health, and substance abuse disorders. Measuring and comparing costs, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit is becoming essential in research comparing computer- to human-provided CBT. If human providers’ time is valued according to market rates reflecting the value of their training and experience, but computer-based therapy is valued without including costs of developing those programs, we may underestimate the costs of using “CBT” to provide CBT (CBT4CBT). This study statistically compared costs, benefits, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit for CBT4CBT versus traditional treatment for alcohol abuse with alternative methods of costing the development of CBT4CBT affect those findings.
Valuing client time devoted to treatment can seem as easy as valuing provider time: typically, minutes spent are multiplied by market pay rate for the client or provider. But what if the opportunity cost of client time can be argued to be nil for a treatment that needs to be re-administered every winter (light therapy), while client and provider time for an alternative treatment (CBT) is finite and for a single winter? This study found multiple solutions to this opportunity-costing problem common in self-directed versus therapy-based health care regimens, with implications for cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit for CBT for Seasonal Affective Disorder (CBT-SAD) versus light therapy.
Learning Objectives:
- This session is designed to help you learn how to measure and include costs of CBT and alternative treatments in your research.
- This session is designed to help you learn how to measure and include generic nonmonetary outcomes, and benefits, of CBT and alternative treatments
- This session is designed to help you learn the essential differences between costs, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-benefit analysis.
- This session is designed to aid understanding of the advantages of adding costs, generic outcomes, monetary benefits to your research
- This session is designed to help you understand how cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis could be included in your clinical trials.
