BACKGROUND: Back @entity158 is one of the most expensive health complaints. Comparing the economic aspects of back @entity158 interventions may therefore contribute to a more efficient use of available resources. This study reports on a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) of two treatments as viewed from a societal perspective: 1) exposure in vivo treatment (EXP), a recently developed cognitive behavioral treatment for @entity1 with @entity1643 who have elevated @entity158 -related fear and 2) the more commonly used graded activity (GA) treatment. METHODS: Sixty-two @entity1 with non-specific @entity1643 received either EXP or GA. Primary data were collected at four participating treatment centers in the Netherlands. Primary outcomes were self-reported disability (for the CEA) and quality-adjusted life years (for the CUA). Program costs, health care utilization, @entity1 and family costs, and production losses were measured by analyzing therapy records and cost diaries. Data was gathered before, during, and after treatment, and at 6 and 12  months after treatment. Non-parametric bootstrap analyses were used to quantify the uncertainty concerning the cost-effectiveness ratio. In addition, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were performed. RESULTS: EXP showed a tendency to reduce disability, increase quality adjusted life years and decrease costs compared to GA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of both the CEA and CUA are in favor of EXP. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, implementing EXP for this group of @entity1 seems to be the best decision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN88087718.

Is exposure in vivo cost-effective for XXXX ? A trial-based economic evaluation.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity1643 :: ('MESH:D017116', 'Disease') :: ['chronic low back pain'] @entity158 :: ('MESH:D010146', 'Disease') :: ['pain']
@entity1643 :: (MESH:D017116,Disease) :: ['chronic low back pain']
