Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier of pharmacological and psychological interventions for adults with social anxiety disorder.

<p>The values used to construct Fig 3 are provided in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0140704#pone.0140704.s005" target="_blank">S2 Table</a>.</p

Intervention costs of psychological treatments (2015 prices).

<p>^aCost of therapists was estimated using the unit cost of Band 7 qualified clinical psychologists (NHS Agenda for Change for qualified Allied Health Professionals), which includes salary, on-costs and overheads [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0140704#pone.0140704.ref039" target="_blank">39</a>]; additional qualification costs estimated as a proportion of this unit cost, after examining unit costs without/with qualification costs for other mental health professionals (consultant psychiatrists and mental health nurses); estimated unit cost for Band 7 therapist equals £110 per hour; total cost per person includes a GP visit for referral to the psychological service; GP unit cost taken from [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0140704#pone.0140704.ref038" target="_blank">38</a>].</p><p>C&W: Clark and Wells model; GCBT: group cognitive behavioural therapy; ICBT: individually delivered cognitive behavioural therapy; IPT: interpersonal therapy; PDPT: psychodynamic psychotherapy; SHNS: self-help no support; SHWS: self-help with support</p><p>Intervention costs of psychological treatments (2015 prices).</p

Cost effectiveness of interventions for adults with social anxiety disorder: results of probabilistic analysis.

<p>^aExtended dominance occurs when an option is less effective and more costly than a linear combination of two alternative options.</p><p>Interventions have been ranked from the most to least effective according to the number of QALYs gained.</p><p>C&W: Clark and Wells model; GCBT: group cognitive behavioural therapy; ICBT: individually delivered cognitive behavioural therapy; ICER: Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio; IPT: interpersonal therapy; NMB: Net Monetary Benefit, estimated using a willingeness to pay £20,000/QALY; PDPT: psychodynamic psychotherapy; SA: Social Anxiety disorder; SHNS: self-help no support; SHWS: self-help with support.</p><p>Mean values per person 5 years after end of treatment.</p

Schematic diagram of the economic model constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions for social anxiety disorder.

<p>Schematic diagram of the economic model constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions for social anxiety disorder.</p

Results of network meta-analysis that were utilised in the economic model: probability of recovery at end of treatment.

<p>The log-odds of recovery on wait list was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean -2.629 and variance 1.235 (estimated using all the wait list arms of RCTs included in the NMA); this translates into a probability of recovery for wait list (mean, 95% credible intervals) as shown above.</p><p>C&W: Clark and Wells model; GCBT: group cognitive behavioural therapy; ICBT: individually delivered cognitive behavioural therapy; IPT: interpersonal therapy; NMA: network meta-analysis; PDPT: psychodynamic psychotherapy; SHNS: self-help no support; SHWS: self-help with support</p><p>Interventions ranked according to probability of recovery (highest to lowest).</p

Cost-effectiveness plane showing the incremental costs and QALYs of all interventions versus wait list.

<p>Wait list is placed at the origin; results are for 1,000 adults with social anxiety disorder at 5 years after treatment. The continuous line shows the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier, while the slope of the dotted line indicates the NICE lower cost effectiveness threshold (£20,000/QALY). The data used to construct Fig 2 are provided in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0140704#pone.0140704.t005" target="_blank">Table 5</a>.</p

Intervention costs of pharmacological treatments considered in the economic analysis (2015 prices).

<p>^a Drug acquisition costs were taken from the Electronic Drug Tariff for England and Wales [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0140704#pone.0140704.ref037" target="_blank">37</a>]; lowest reported price for each drug was used, including prices of generic forms, where available.</p><p>^b GP cost includes 4 GP visits during 12 weeks of initial treatment and 3 visits during the 26-week maintenance period, at £46.75 per visit = £327.25; GP unit cost, including qualification and direct care staff costs, was taken from [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0140704#pone.0140704.ref038" target="_blank">38</a>] and inflated to 2015 price.</p><p>Intervention costs of pharmacological treatments considered in the economic analysis (2015 prices).</p

Methodological quality of included studies (n = 18).

<p>Methodological quality of included studies (n = 18).</p

Meta-analysis: proportion of mental health-related ED attendances due to specific conditions.

<p>Meta-analysis: proportion of mental health-related ED attendances due to specific conditions.</p

Reliability of moderate-intensity and vigorous physical activity stage of change measures for young adults.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of stage of change (SOC) measures for moderate-intensity and vigorous physical activity in two separate samples of young adults. Staging measures have focused on vigorous exercise, but current public health guidelines emphasize moderate-intensity activity.MethodFor college students in the USA (n = 105) and in Australia (n = 123), SOC was assessed separately on two occasions for moderate-intensity activity and for vigorous activity. Test&ndash;retest repeatability was determined, using Cohen&rsquo;s kappa coefficient.ResultsIn both samples, the reliability scores for the moderate-intensity physical activity staging measure were lower than the scores for the vigorous exercise staging measure. Weighted kappa values for the moderate-intensity staging measure were in the &ldquo;fair to good&rdquo; range for both studies (0.50 and 0.45); for the vigorous staging measure kappa values were &ldquo;excellent&rdquo; and &ldquo;fair to good&rdquo; (0.76 and 0.72).ConclusionsThere is a need to standardize and improve methods for staging moderate-intensity activity, given that such measures are used in public health interventions targeting HEPA (health-enhancing physical activity).<br /