Cost‐utility of individual internet‐based and face‐to‐face Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy compared to Treatment As Usual in reducing psychological distress in cancer patients

Objective It was previously determined that group-based face-to-face Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and individual internet-based MBCT (eMBCT) are equally efficacious compared with treatment as usual (TAU) in reducing psychological distress. In this study, the incremental cost-utility of both interventions compared with TAU was assessed. Methods This cost-utility study included 245 self-referred heterogeneous cancer patients with psychological distress who were randomized to MBCT, eMBCT or TAU. Healthcare costs and (informal) work-related productivity losses were assessed by interview. Outcomes were expressed in EuroQol-5D-3L utility scores and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). An economic evaluation with a time-horizon of 3 months was conducted from the societal perspective in the intention-to-treat sample. In addition, secondary explorative analyses of costs and quality of life during the 9-month follow-up were conducted based on linear extrapolation of TAU. Results Paid work-related productivity losses and societal costs were lower in both intervention conditions compared with TAU during the 3-month intervention period. Moreover, quality of life (utility scores) improved in eMBCT versus TAU (Cohen's d: .54) and MBCT versus TAU (.53). At a willingness to pay of euro20000 per QALY, the mean incremental net monetary benefit was euro1916 (SD=euro783) in eMBCT and euro2365 (SD=euro796) in MBCT versus TAU. Exploration of costs demonstrated an equal pattern of eMBCT and MBCT being superior to TAU. Quality of life at 9-month follow-up remained improved in both interventions. Conclusions Results indicate that eMBCT and MBCT are cost-saving treatments whilst simultaneously improving quality of life for distressed cancer patients.