Verdsettelse av Algeta ASA : ved bruk av DCF-metoden og realopsjonsteori

Denne masteravhandlingen verdsetter det norske selskapet Algeta ASA både ved å benytte tradisjonelle kontantstrøm-analyser og realopsjonsteori. Bruk av realopsjonsteori gir i forhold til tradisjonelle kontantstrøm-analyser et noe høyere verdiestimat på selskapet fordi verdien av dets fleksibilitet hensyntas. Kontantstrøm-analysen verdsetter Algeta ASA til 17 274 mNOK, mens bruk av realopsjonsteori gir selskapet en estimert verdi som er 394 mNOK høyere. Dette innebærer at den estimerte verdien per aksje er 406 NOK ved bruk av tradisjonelle kontantstrøm-analyser, og 415 NOK ved bruk av realopsjonsteori. Til sammenligning er kursen ved verdsettelsestidspunktet, 12 april 2013, 192 NOK. Innledningsvis blir bioteknologibransjen og Algeta presentert, før oppgavens teoretiske fundament blir introdusert. Deretter vil vår regnskapsanalyse og strategiske analyse bli gjennomgått. Disse analysene vil senere danne grunnlaget for valg av inndatavariabler i verdsettelsen av selskapet. Det siste kapittelet før selve verdsettelsen tar for seg beregningen av avkastningskravet. Selve verdsettelsen deler selskapet opp i tre ulike prosjekter; Alpharadin for prostatakreft, Alpharadin for brystkreft og Thorium 227. Prosjektene antas å kunne havne i en rekke ulike potensielle scenarier. Verdien av prosjektene i de ulike scenariene beregnes først ved å benytte diskontert kontantstrøm-metoden. Verdsettelsen utvides deretter ved å også beregne verdien av de realopsjonene selskapet er eksponert for. Usikkerheten av verdiestimatet analyseres avslutningsvis ved å utføre Monte Carlo-simuleringer. I disse simuleringene tillates inndatavariablene å variere for å skape et bilde på potensielle ex-post og ex-ante verdier. Avslutningsvis presenteres en konklusjon som presenterer oppgavens funn

Group Metacognitive Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Pilot Feasibility Trial

Background: Individual metacognitive therapy (MCT) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is well established, but only one study has investigated the effectiveness of Group MCT (g-MCT) for GAD. The aim of the current study was therefore to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of g-MCT for GAD within a community mental health setting whilst addressing limitations evident in the previous study.Methods: The study used an open trial design, and 23 consecutively referred adults with GAD completed 10 sessions (90 min) of g-MCT, delivered by two therapists trained in MCT. Diagnoses were assessed by trained raters using the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule-IV. All patients but one had previous psychosocial treatment, and 17 (73.9%) had at least one comorbid axis-I disorder. Self-reported symptoms were assessed using the Penn State Worry Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 at pre- and post-treatment as well as 3-month follow-up. Feasibility was assessed using rates of patients who declined group treatment in favor of individual treatment, patients not able to attend due to pre-scheduled dates for sessions, and drop-out rate.Results: Of 32 eligible participants, six patients (19%) declined g-MCT in favor of individual MCT, and three (9%) were unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts. No patients dropped out during treatment, but two patients did not complete the self-report questionnaires at 3-month follow-up. g-MCT was associated with significant reductions in worry, anxiety, depression, metacognitive beliefs, and maladaptive coping. According to the standardized Jacobson criteria for recovery, 65.3% were recovered at post-treatment, whereas 30.4% were improved and 4.3% showed no change. At 3-month follow-up, the recovery rate increased to 78.3%. Moreover, recovery rates were comparable for patients with- and without comorbidity. Number of therapist hours per patient was 6.5 and the treatment has now been implemented as a standard treatment option at the clinic.Conclusion: g-MCT for GAD is an acceptable treatment which may offer a cost-effective alternative approach to individual MCT. Recovery rates and effect sizes suggested that g-MCT could be just as efficient as individual MCT and cognitive behavioral therapy

Personality traits and hardiness as risk- and protective factors for mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Norwegian two-wave study

Background Several risk factors for anxious-depressive symptomatology during the COVID-19 pandemic have been established. However, few studies have examined the relationship between personality traits, hardiness, and such symptomatology during the pandemic. These constructs might serve as risk- and/or protective factors for such mental distress through the pandemic. Methods A sample of 5783 Norwegians responded to a survey at two time points within the first year of the pandemic. The first data collection was in April 2020 (T1) and the second in December 2020 (T2). Measures included the Ten-Item Personality-Inventory, the Revised Norwegian Dispositional Resilience Scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale. Analyses were performed using Pearson’s correlations, multiple linear regression, and a moderation analysis. Results Anxious-depressive symptomatology in early phases (T1) of the pandemic was the strongest predictor for the presence of such symptomatology 9 months after the outbreak (T2). Personality and hardiness correlated significantly with mental distress at T1 and T2. Personality traits explained 5% variance in symptoms when controlling for age, gender, solitary living, negative economic impact, and mental distress at baseline. Higher neuroticism predicted higher mental distress, whereas higher conscientiousness and extraversion predicted less mental distress. Hardiness did not explain variance in outcome beyond personality traits. Hardiness did not significantly moderate the relationship between neuroticism and mental distress. Conclusion Individuals with high levels of neuroticism had greater difficulties adapting to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and were more prone to mental distress. Contrastingly, higher conscientiousness and extraversion may have served as protective factors for mental distress during the pandemic. The current findings might aid identification of vulnerable individuals and groups. Consequently, preventive interventions could be offered to those who need it the most.publishedVersio

Metacognitive Therapy for Depression in Adults: A Waiting List Randomized Controlled Trial with Six Months Follow-Up

This randomized controlled trial examines the efficacy of metacognitive therapy (MCT) for depression. Thirty-nine patients with depression were randomly assigned to immediate MCT (10 sessions) or a 10-week wait list period (WL). The WL-group received 10 sessions of MCT after the waiting period. Two participants dropped out from WL and none dropped out of immediate MCT treatment. Participants receiving MCT improved significantly more than the WL group. Large controlled effect sizes were observed for both depressive (d = 2.51) and anxious symptoms (d = 1.92). Approximately 70–80% could be classified as recovered at post-treatment and 6 months follow-up following immediate MCT, whilst 5% of the WL patients recovered during the waiting period. The results suggest that MCT is a promising treatment for depression. Future controlled studies should compare MCT with other active treatments

Treatment Adherence as Predictor of Outcome in Concentrated Exposure Treatment for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Background: The treatment of choice for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is exposure and response prevention (EX/RP). Previous studies have demonstrated that treatment adherence predicts treatment outcome for patients with OCD, but there is little knowledge on its role in concentrated exposure treatment for OCD. Method: In the present study, 42 patients received EX/RP treatment using the Bergen 4-day format. Adherence was measured with the Exposure and Response Prevention Adherence Scale (PEAS, rated both by patients and therapists) after the second and third day. Treatment outcome (symptoms of OCD, depression, anxiety, work- and social functioning, and well-being) was assessed at 3-month follow-up. Results: At follow-up, 71.4% were in remission. High adherence was reported (mean score of 6 on a 1–7 scale). The combination of patient- and therapist rated adherence was significantly associated with treatment outcome whilst controlling for age, sex, and pre-treatment scores. Patients with higher degree of adherence reported less symptoms, higher functioning, and more well-being at follow-up. Conclusions: The results of the present study indicated that adherence in concentrated exposure treatment is significantly associated with a wide range of treatment outcomes for OCD.publishedVersio

Does Concentrated Exposure Treatment for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Improve Insomnia Symptoms? Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Insomnia is a substantial problem in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). There is, however, a lack of studies investigating changes in concurrent symptoms of insomnia in OCD after concentrated treatment. A recent randomized controlled trial randomized participants to the Bergen 4-day treatment (B4DT, n = 16), or 12 weeks of unguided self-help (SH, n = 16), or waitlist (WL, n = 16). Patients from the SH- and WL-group who wanted further treatment after the 12 weeks were then offered the B4DT (total of 42 patients treated with the B4DT). There were no significant differences in symptoms of insomnia between the conditions at post-treatment, but a significant moderate improvement at 3-month follow-up for patients who received the B4DT. Insomnia was not associated with OCD-treatment outcome, and change in symptoms of insomnia was mainly related to changes in depressive symptoms. The main conclusion is that concentrated exposure treatment is effective irrespective of comorbid insomnia, and that insomnia problems are moderately reduced following treatment.publishedVersio

Group Metacognitive Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A pilot feasibility Trial

Background: Individual metacognitive therapy (MCT) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is well established, but only one study has investigated the effectiveness of Group MCT (g-MCT) for GAD. The aim of the current study was therefore to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of g-MCT for GAD within a community mental health setting whilst addressing limitations evident in the previous study. Methods: The study used an open trial design, and 23 consecutively referred adults with GAD completed 10 sessions (90 min) of g-MCT, delivered by two therapists trained in MCT. Diagnoses were assessed by trained raters using the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule-IV. All patients but one had previous psychosocial treatment, and 17 (73.9%) had at least one comorbid axis-I disorder. Self-reported symptoms were assessed using the Penn State Worry Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 at pre- and post-treatment as well as 3-month follow-up. Feasibility was assessed using rates of patients who declined group treatment in favor of individual treatment, patients not able to attend due to pre-scheduled dates for sessions, and drop-out rate. Results: Of 32 eligible participants, six patients (19%) declined g-MCT in favor of individual MCT, and three (9%) were unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts. No patients dropped out during treatment, but two patients did not complete the self-report questionnaires at 3-month follow-up. g-MCT was associated with significant reductions in worry, anxiety, depression, metacognitive beliefs, and maladaptive coping. According to the standardized Jacobson criteria for recovery, 65.3% were recovered at post-treatment, whereas 30.4% were improved and 4.3% showed no change. At 3-month follow-up, the recovery rate increased to 78.3%. Moreover, recovery rates were comparable for patients with- and without comorbidity. Number of therapist hours per patient was 6.5 and the treatment has now been implemented as a standard treatment option at the clinic. Conclusion: g-MCT for GAD is an acceptable treatment which may offer a cost-effective alternative approach to individual MCT. Recovery rates and effect sizes suggested that g-MCT could be just as efficient as individual MCT and cognitive behavioral therapy

Changes in mental health symptoms from April (COVID-19 outbreak) to December 2020 in Norway: A two-wave study

The main objective of the study was to investigate changes in mental health symptoms from the start of the pandemic in Norway (April) to December 2020. A total of 6017 participants completed an assessment of the survey at both time points. Main Outcome Measures: Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured at both time points. Demographic variables and potential risk factors were assessed. There were significant changes (slight increase) in anxiety and depression, but effect sizes were small. Increases in symptoms in anxiety and depression occurred more in the general population than for people with pre-existing mental health problems. Baseline level of symptoms was the most important risk factor. Other significant risk factors included female sex, students, pre-existing mental health problems, increased tobacco use, lost job, and lacking government trust. The longitudinal results replicated findings from the first phase of the pandemic, suggesting that the number of risk factors experienced is associated with symptom severity. The results suggest that mental health symptoms have been quite stable from April to December but with a slight increase among people presenting with subclinical symptoms in April.publishedVersio

The Bergen 4-Day Treatment for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Does It Work in a New Clinical Setting?

Sørlandet Hospital in Norway has a history of offering patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) cognitive behavior group therapy using 12 weekly sessions of 2.5 h each. A previous evaluation of this treatment has shown that 51.9% did not respond at post-treatment. Recently, a highly concentrated group-treatment format, the Bergen 4-day treatment (B4DT), has been shown to help more than 90% of patients with OCD post-treatment. Based on these positive results, it was decided to explore whether the B4DT could be a feasible format for delivering ERP at another clinic. Thirty-five consecutively recruited patients were included in the current pilot study, and assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up. Treatment response rate (35% reduction in OCD-symptom score) was 94% at post-treatment, and 80% at follow-up. Seventy-four percent were in remission at post-treatment and 68% at follow-up. Only one patient dropped out of treatment. The patients were highly satisfied with the treatment content and format. The results indicate that the 4-day treatment could successfully be implemented at a new clinic

Examination of the knowledge gap of return-to-work outcomes in routine outpatient treatment for common mental disorders: a systematic review

ObjectiveLittle is known about the effects of routine mental health care on return-to-work (RTW) outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarize and evaluate the effects of clinical representative psychotherapy on RTW among patients with a common mental disorder (CMD), treated within public mental health care.MethodA systematic search was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and SveMED+. Primary outcomes were RTW, sick leave status, or self-reported work functioning. Studies limited to specific treatments and/or specific patient groups were excluded.ResultsOut of 1,422 records, only one article met the preregistered inclusion criteria. After broadening of criteria, a total of nine studies were included. Six were randomized controlled trials (RCT), two were register-based studies, and one was a quasi-experimental study. Descriptions of treatment duration and intensity of usual care were rarely specified but ranged from a few sessions to 3 years of psychotherapy. In the RCTs, two studies favored the intervention, one favored routine care, and three found no difference between conditions. Choice of outcomes differed greatly and included RTW rates (full or partial), number of days until RTW, change in sick leave status, and net days/months of work absence. Time points for outcome assessment also varied greatly from 3 months to 5 years after treatment.ConclusionThere is inconclusive evidence to establish to what extent routine mental healthcare is associated with improved RTW outcomes for patients with CMD. There is a need for more and better clinical trials and naturalistic studies detailing the content of routine treatment and its effect on RTW.Systematic review registrationThis study was pre-registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022304967), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022304967