Cost-effectiveness of Brief Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Cost-effectiveness Planes
Cost-effectiveness Planes

Scatter plots of bootstrapped cost-and-effect pairs were used to construct cost-effectiveness planes divided into 4 quadrants centered at 0. If the majority of the cost-effect observations were located in the SE quadrant the program was considered to be less costly and more effective. AFDs indicate anxiety-free days; DFDs, depression-free days; HUI2, Health Utilities Index Mark 2; QALYs, quality-adjusted life-years.

Figure 2.  Cost-effectiveness Acceptability Curves
Cost-effectiveness Acceptability Curves

The probability that brief behavioral therapy (BBT) was cost-effective compared with assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care over a range of amounts that a decision-maker might be willing to pay for an additional outcome. Vertical dashed line indicates the reasonable threshold for cost-effectiveness of $50 000 or less per quality-adjusted life-year.

Table 1.  Usual Care Service Use From Intake Through 32 Weeks’ Follow-upa
Usual Care Service Use From Intake Through 32 Weeks’ Follow-upa
Table 2.  Usual Care Costs From Intake Through 32 Weeks’ Follow-up
Usual Care Costs From Intake Through 32 Weeks’ Follow-up
Table 3.  Incremental Adjusted Differences and ICERs From Intake Through 32 Weeks’ Follow-up
Incremental Adjusted Differences and ICERs From Intake Through 32 Weeks’ Follow-up
1.
Merikangas  KR, He  JP, Burstein  M,  et al.  Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A).   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(10):980-989. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.05.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Bittner  A, Egger  HL, Erkanli  A, Jane Costello  E, Foley  DL, Angold  A.  What do childhood anxiety disorders predict?   J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48(12):1174-1183. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01812.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Costello  EJ, Egger  H, Angold  A.  10-Year research update review: the epidemiology of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders: I. Methods and public health burden.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005;44(10):972-986. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000172552.41596.6f PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Fergusson  DM, Woodward  LJ.  Mental health, educational, and social role outcomes of adolescents with depression.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59(3):225-231. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.3.225 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Woodward  LJ, Fergusson  DM.  Life course outcomes of young people with anxiety disorders in adolescence.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40(9):1086-1093. doi:10.1097/00004583-200109000-00018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
James  AC, James  G, Cowdrey  FA, Soler  A, Choke  A. Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(6):CD004690. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004690.pub3
7.
Reynolds  S, Wilson  C, Austin  J, Hooper  L.  Effects of psychotherapy for anxiety in children and adolescents: a meta-analytic review.   Clin Psychol Rev. 2012;32(4):251-262. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.01.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Asarnow  JR, Rozenman  MS, Carlson  GA.  Medication and cognitive behavioral therapy for pediatric anxiety disorders: no need for anxiety in treating anxiety.   JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(11):1038-1039. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Higa-McMillan  CK, Francis  SE, Rith-Najarian  L, Chorpita  BF.  Evidence base update: 50 years of research on treatment for child and adolescent anxiety.   J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2016;45(2):91-113. doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1046177 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Maalouf  FT, Brent  DA.  Child and adolescent depression intervention overview: what works, for whom and how well?   Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2012;21(2):299-312, viii. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2012.01.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Weersing  VR, Jeffreys  M, Do  MT, Schwartz  KT, Bolano  C.  Evidence base update of psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent depression.   J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2017;46(1):11-43. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1220310 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Merikangas  KR, He  JP, Burstein  M,  et al.  Service utilization for lifetime mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: results of the National Comorbidity Survey–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A).   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(1):32-45. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.10.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Greenberg  PE, Sisitsky  T, Kessler  RC,  et al.  The economic burden of anxiety disorders in the 1990s.   J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60(7):427-435. doi:10.4088/JCP.v60n0702 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Lépine  JP.  The epidemiology of anxiety disorders: prevalence and societal costs.   J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(suppl 14):4-8.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Higa-McMillan  C, Kotte  A, Jackson  D, Daleiden  EL.  Overlapping and non-overlapping practices in usual and evidence-based care for youth anxiety.   J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(4):684-694. doi:10.1007/s11414-016-9502-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Ollendick  TH, Ryan  SM, Capriola-Hall  NN, Austin  KE, Fraire  M.  Have phobias, will travel: addressing one barrier to the delivery of an evidence-based treatment.   Behav Ther. 2018;49(4):594-603. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2017.11.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wolitzky-Taylor  K, Zimmermann  M, Arch  JJ, De Guzman  E, Lagomasino  I.  Has evidence-based psychosocial treatment for anxiety disorders permeated usual care in community mental health settings?   Behav Res Ther. 2015;72:9-17. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2015.06.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Palinkas  LA, Um  MY, Jeong  CH,  et al.  Adoption of innovative and evidence-based practices for children and adolescents in state-supported mental health clinics: a qualitative study.   Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):27. doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0190-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Fusar-Poli  P, Solmi  M, Brondino  N,  et al.  Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review.   World Psychiatry. 2019;18(2):192-207. doi:10.1002/wps.20631 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Weersing  VR, Brent  DA, Rozenman  MS,  et al.  Brief behavioral therapy for pediatric anxiety and depression in primary care: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(6):571-578. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0429 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Brent  DA, Porta  G, Rozenman  MS,  et al.  Brief behavioral therapy for pediatric anxiety and depression in primary care: a follow-up.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(7):856-867. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2019.06.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Kaufman  J, Birmaher  B, Brent  D,  et al.  Schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia for School-Age Children–Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): initial reliability and validity data.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(7):980-988. doi:10.1097/00004583-199707000-00021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Guy  W. Clinical Global Impression Scale. In:Guy W, ed.  ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. National Institute of Mental Health;1976:218-222.
24.
Shaffer  D, Gould  MS, Brasic  J,  et al.  A children’s global assessment scale (CGAS).   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983;40(11):1228-1231. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790100074010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
 The Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS): development and psychometric properties.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;41(9):1061-1069. doi:10.1097/00004583-200209000-00006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Poznanski  EO, Mokros  HB.  Children’s DepressionRatingScale–Revised,Manual. WesternPsychologicalServices; 1996.
27.
Torrance  GW, Feeny  DH, Furlong  WJ, Barr  RD, Zhang  Y, Wang  Q.  Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2.   Med Care. 1996;34(7):702-722. doi:10.1097/00005650-199607000-00004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Bodden  DH, Dirksen  CD, Bögels  SM,  et al.  Costs and cost-effectiveness of family CBT versus individual CBT in clinically anxious children.   Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;13(4):543-564. doi:10.1177/1359104508090602 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Mihalopoulos  C, Magnus  A, Lal  A, Dell  L, Forbes  D, Phelps  A.  Is implementation of the 2013 Australian treatment guidelines for posttraumatic stress disorder cost-effective compared to current practice? a cost-utility analysis using QALYs and DALYs.   Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(4):360-376. doi:10.1177/0004867414553948 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Chatterton  ML, Rapee  RM, Catchpool  M,  et al.  Economic evaluation of stepped care for the management of childhood anxiety disorders: results from a randomised trial.   Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2019;53(7):673-682. doi:10.1177/0004867418823272 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Creswell  C, Violato  M, Fairbanks  H,  et al.  Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of brief guided parent-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and solution-focused brief therapy for treatment of childhood anxiety disorders: a randomised controlled trial.   Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4(7):529-539. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30149-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Joesch  JM, Sherbourne  CD, Sullivan  G, Stein  MB, Craske  MG, Roy-Byrne  P.  Incremental benefits and cost of coordinated anxiety learning and management for anxiety treatment in primary care.   Psychol Med. 2012;42(9):1937-1948. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002893 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Egger  N, Konnopka  A, Beutel  ME,  et al.  Long-term cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy versus psychodynamic therapy in social anxiety disorder.   Depress Anxiety. 2016;33(12):1114-1122. doi:10.1002/da.22540 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Katon  W, Russo  J, Sherbourne  C,  et al.  Incremental cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for panic disorder.   Psychol Med. 2006;36(3):353-363. doi:10.1017/S0033291705006896 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Lynch  FL, Dickerson  JF, Clarke  GN,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of preventing depression among at-risk youths: postintervention and 2-year follow-up.   Psychiatr Serv. 2019;70(4):279-286. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201800144 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Lynch  FL, Dickerson  JF, Clarke  G,  et al.  Incremental cost-effectiveness of combined therapy vs medication only for youth with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-resistant depression: treatment of SSRI-resistant depression in adolescents trial findings.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(3):253-262. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Simon  GE, Ludman  EJ, Rutter  CM.  Incremental benefit and cost of telephone care management and telephone psychotherapy for depression in primary care.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(10):1081-1089. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.123 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Ascher  BH, Farmer  EMZ, Burns  BJ, Angold  A.  The Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA) description and psychometrics.   JEmot BehavDisord. 1996;4(1):12-20.Google Scholar
39.
Gold  MR,Siegel  JE,Russell  LB,Weinstein  MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford Press University; 1996.
40.
Domino  ME, Burns  BJ, Silva  SG,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of treatments for adolescent depression: results from TADS.   Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(5):588-596. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07101610 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Hoch  JS, Briggs  AH, Willan  AR.  Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis.   Health Econ. 2002;11(5):415-430. doi:10.1002/hec.678 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Efron  B, Tibshirani  RJ.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall; 1993. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9
43.
Thompson  SG, Barber  JA.  How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed?   BMJ. 2000;320(7243):1197-1200. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1197 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Fenwick  E, Byford  S.  A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.   Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:106-108. doi:10.1192/bjp.187.2.106 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Potthoff  RF, Tudor  GE, Pieper  KS, Hasselblad  V.  Can one assess whether missing data are missing at random in medical studies?   Stat Methods Med Res. 2006;15(3):213-234. doi:10.1191/0962280206sm448oaPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Royston  P.  Multiple imputation of missing values.   Stata J 2004;4:227–241. doi:10.1177/1536867X0400400301Google ScholarCrossref
47.
Cleemput  I, Neyt  M, Thiry  N, De Laet  C, Leys  M.  Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions.   Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):71-76. doi:10.1017/S0266462310001194 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Ophuis  RH, Lokkerbol  J, Heemskerk  SC, van Balkom  AJ, Hiligsmann  M, Evers  SM.  Cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating anxiety disorders: a systematic review.   J Affect Disord. 2017;210:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Lee  YY, Barendregt  JJ, Stockings  EA,  et al.  The population cost-effectiveness of delivering universal and indicated school-based interventions to prevent the onset of major depression among youth in Australia.   Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2017;26(5):545-564. doi:10.1017/S2045796016000469 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Wright  DR, Haaland  WL, Ludman  E, McCauley  E, Lindenbaum  J, Richardson  LP.  The costs and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for adolescents with depression in primary care settings: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(11):1048-1054. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1721 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Dickerson  JF, Lynch  FL, Leo  MC, DeBar  LL, Pearson  J, Clarke  GN.  Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for depressed youth declining antidepressants.   Pediatrics. 2018;141(2):e20171969. doi:10.1542/peds.2017-1969 PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Andersen  P, Toner  P, Bland  M, McMillan  D.  Effectiveness of transdiagnostic cognitive behaviour therapy for anxiety and depression in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Behav Cogn Psychother. 2016;44(6):673-690. doi:10.1017/S1352465816000229 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Rozenman  M, Patarino  KM.  Pediatric anxiety in practice: a knowledge and needs assessment of pediatricians and nurses.   J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2020;41(8):605-611. doi:10.1097/DBP.0000000000000821 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Brown  JD, Riley  AW, Wissow  LS.  Identification of youth psychosocial problems during pediatric primary care visits.   Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007;34(3):269-281. doi:10.1007/s10488-006-0106-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Kelleher  KJ, Campo  JV, Gardner  WP.  Management of pediatric mental disorders in primary care: where are we now and where are we going?   Curr Opin Pediatr. 2006;18(6):649-653. doi:10.1097/MOP.0b013e3280106a76 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Kolko  DJ, Perrin  E.  The integration of behavioral health interventions in children’s health care: services, science, and suggestions.   J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2014;43(2):216-228. doi:10.1080/15374416.2013.862804 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Pediatrics
    March 15, 2021

    Cost-effectiveness of Brief Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
    • 2Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
    • 3Department of Psychology, California State University of Long Beach, Long Beach
    • 4Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park
    • 5Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    • 6Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego State University and University of California San Diego, San Diego
    • 7Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e211778. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1778
    Key Points

    Question  Is transdiagnostic brief behavioral therapy in primary care cost-effective for treatment of youth anxiety and depression compared with assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care?

    Findings  In this economic evaluation of 185 youths with anxiety and/or depression who received brief behavioral therapy or assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care, brief behavioral therapy was associated with significantly more quality-adjusted life-years and a greater probability of cost-effectiveness at 32 weeks compared with assisted referral to outpatient care.

    Meaning  These results suggest that dissemination of effective transdiagnostic interventions for anxiety and depression may be associated with improved health among youths and with reduced costs.

    Abstract

    Importance  Youth anxiety and depression are common and undertreated. Pediatric transdiagnostic interventions for anxiety and/or depression may be associated with improved access to treatment among youths.

    Objective  To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pediatric transdiagnostic brief behavioral therapy (BBT) program for anxiety and/or depression compared with assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care (ARC).

    Design, Setting, and Participants  In this economic evaluation, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective using data from a randomized clinical trial of youths with full or probable diagnoses of anxiety or depression who were recruited from pediatric clinics in San Diego, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The trial was conducted from October 6, 2010, through December 5, 2014, and this analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, through October 20, 2020.

    Interventions  In the randomized clinical trial, youths were randomized to BBT (n = 95) or ARC (n = 90). The BBT program consisted of 8 to 12 weekly 45-minute sessions of behavioral therapy delivered in pediatric clinics by master’s-level therapists. Families randomized to ARC received personalized referrals to mental health care and telephone calls to support access to care.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Anxiety-free days, depression-free days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from intake through 32-week follow-up. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for QALYs was used to assess the probability that BBT was cost-effective compared with ARC over a range of amounts that a decision-maker might be willing to pay for an additional outcome.

    Results  Enrolled patients included 185 youths (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [2.6] years; 107 [57.8%] female; 144 [77.8%] White; and 38 [20.7%] Hispanic). Youths who received BBT experienced significantly more anxiety-free days (difference, 28.63 days; 95% CI, 5.86-50.71 days; P = .01) and QALYs (difference, 0.026; 95% CI, 0.009-0.046; P = .007) compared with youths who received ARC. Youths who received BBT experienced more depression-free days than did youths who received ARC (difference, 10.52 days; 95% CI, −4.50 to 25.76 days; P = .18), but the difference was not statistically significant. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was −$41 414 per QALY (95% CI, −$220 601 to $11 468). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis indicated that, at a recommended willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, the probability that BBT would be cost-effective compared with ARC at 32 weeks was 95.6%.

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this economic evaluation, BBT in primary care was significantly associated with better outcomes and a greater probability of cost-effectiveness at 32 weeks compared with ARC. The findings suggest that transdiagnostic BBT may be associated with improved youth anxiety and functioning at a reasonable cost.

    Introduction

    Anxiety and depression during childhood and adolescence are common, highly comorbid, and associated with significant impairment.1-5 Approximately 30% of youths experience anxiety, depression, or both by the end of puberty.1 These disorders are associated with long-term negative outcomes, including impairment in relationships, poor academic performance, reduced quality of life, increased risk of anxiety and depression in adulthood, teen pregnancy, substance use, and self-harm.3-5

    Several evidence-based treatments are available for youth anxiety and/or depression, including medication, cognitive behavioral therapy, and interpersonal psychotherapy.6-11 However, less than 50% of youths with these conditions receive any mental health service.12 Youths with anxiety and depression also often experience physical symptoms that require extensive testing and treatment and thus lead to avoidable costs. Without treatment, many youths continue to experience substantial burden, and increased severity and chronicity are associated with decreased treatment responsiveness and increased costs.13,14

    Despite availability of efficacious treatments for anxiety and depression,6-11 usual care services often do not offer evidence-based approaches specifically targeting anxiety or depression.15-17 Health systems experience barriers to providing services with the strongest evidence base,18 including a lack of information about the immediate budgetary impact of introducing programs as well as their longer-term effects on costs.18 Furthermore, health systems must make decisions regarding which programs to select given that many evidence-based treatments are designed to manage only 1 disorder (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety,9 interpersonal psychotherapy for depression11). Recent initiatives by the National Institute of Mental Health have stressed the importance of developing transdiagnostic interventions designed to target core processes common across frequently comorbid disorders and to improve their uptake in busy primary care clinics.19 Providing decision-makers with information on the costs and benefits associated with transdiagnostic programs may encourage expansion of effective services for youths. However, studies of the cost-effectiveness of any evidence-based mental health programs for youths are rare, and to our knowledge, there have been no economic evaluations of a transdiagnostic intervention for youths.

    In this study, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a transdiagnostic brief behavioral therapy (BBT) program designed for youths with anxiety and/or depression diagnoses that was delivered in pediatric primary care settings.17 The BBT program was designed to target common core mechanisms of avoidance of negative effects and poor approaches to rewarding stimuli thought to be associated with anxiety and depression in youths. The BBT intervention components were based on youth anxiety (graded exposure) and depression (behavioral activation) research.20 Data for the CEA were from a randomized clinical trial (RCT)20,21 that evaluated the effects of BBT compared with assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care (ARC). In the RCT, BBT had significantly better clinical effects immediately after treatment and at follow-up assessments, and BBT was particularly effective for Hispanic youths. The present study assessed whether BBT is also a more cost-effective anxiety and depression treatment compared with ARC by using a CEA from a societal perspective from intake through the 32-week follow-up period.

    Methods
    Participants

    This economic evaluation used data from an RCT20,21 of BBT vs ARC that enrolled 185 youths aged 8.0 to 16.9 years who met criteria for full or probable diagnoses of anxiety, depression, or both. Overall, 114 youths (61.6%) met the criteria for an anxiety disorder, of whom 60 (32.4%) had a diagnosis of clinically significant anxiety and depression and 11 (5.9%) had depression without current anxiety. Youths were excluded if they had a current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) diagnosis of bipolar disorder or substance dependence or report of current suicidal plan, current abuse, intellectual disability or school performance below the second-grade level, or unstable serious physical illness. Also excluded were youths receiving active alternate treatment for anxiety or depression.20,21 The trial recruited participants from pediatric clinics in San Diego, California (4 sites), and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (5 sites), from October 6, 2010, to December 5, 2014. The current analysis was conducted from January 1, 2019, to October 20, 2020. The institutional review boards at San Diego State University, the University of Pittsburgh, and Kaiser Permanente of Southern California approved this study. We obtained written informed consent and assent from parents and youths, respectively. The study followed the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guideline.

    In the RCT, youths were randomly assigned to BBT (n = 95) or ARC (n = 90) with a balance of race/ethnicity and clinically significant depression at baseline.21 Brief behavioral therapy is a transdiagnostic intervention developed to address youth anxiety, depression, and comorbid presentation. It consisted of 8 to 12 weekly 45-minute sessions delivered in a primary care setting by a master’s-level therapist. The intervention was explicitly behavioral (vs cognitive-behavioral) and combined exposure and behavioral activation to improve engagement in avoided activities, alleviate symptoms, and improve functioning. The program also included brief training in relaxation to manage somatic symptoms and problem solving for stress management.

    The comparison group (ARC) received telephone calls from project staff, assistance, and referrals to help with engagement in outpatient mental health services after randomization. Additional details about the trial design, intervention, and outcomes are reported elsewhere.20,21

    Clinical Outcomes

    In the RCT, independent evaluators assessed youths’ current diagnoses using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children,22 and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale was used to assess global severity23 and improvement of anxiety and depression at baseline, 16 weeks, and 32 weeks after the intervention. Functional impairment was rated by independent evaluators using the Children’s Global Assessment Scale.24 Anxiety severity was assessed using the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale25 and depression severity with the Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised.26 We assessed health-related quality of life using the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the CEA.27

    We created measures of QALYs,28-31 anxiety-free days (AFDs),32-34 and depression-free days (DFDs)35,36 based on CEA of other mental health treatments. To calculate AFDs and DFDs, we used the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale and Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised scores, respectively, from all follow-up points to categorize (1) days with no symptoms, (2) days with some symptoms but not meeting the full criteria for depression or anxiety disorders, and (3) days with symptoms meeting the diagnostic criteria for depression or anxiety disorders. To calculate symptoms for each day during the follow-up period, we used linear interpolation to assign a value to each day in the interval, with days with milder symptoms weighted less. The number of AFDs or DFDs was the total number of days in the interval minus the number of days with symptoms. This approach was used to capture the association of the intervention with the outcomes by including days with mild symptoms and days with significant symptoms.35-37

    BBT and ARC Intervention Costs

    We used records from the RCT about activities, facilities, and overhead costs to calculate intervention costs. Paid master’s-level therapists, similar to staff who might provide the intervention in primary care, conducted the intervention in the RCT. They estimated time to complete intervention tasks as well as their use of equipment and supplies. We included costs of BBT sessions or ARC referral telecalls by project staff, time therapists and staff spent with youths and parents on the telephone or in person, clinical training, supervision, and materials. Research-specific costs (eg, randomization) were excluded.

    Usual Care Services

    The CEA examined the incremental difference in clinical outcomes (QALYs, DFDs) and costs of the BBT intervention compared with ARC. We did not attempt to control the type of setting or payment model. We used the Child and Adolescent Services Assessment38 to gather data on usual care services for both the BBT and the ARC groups, capturing a wide range of health, social, and educational services. We applied nationally representative unit costs developed for previous studies.35,36 A youth and a parent separately reported services that the youth received. This method allowed us to gather information on the variety of services that youths are likely to use (eg, health system, school, and social welfare) without having to obtain data from multiple systems. Given that youths came from a wide range of community clinics and geographic areas, this method was the most practical for obtaining comparable data for all youths. For the baseline assessment, youths reported services received in the previous 3 months; at each follow-up assessment, they reported services received since the previous assessment.

    Family Costs

    In accordance with expert guidelines for economic evaluations,39 we estimated family costs as the time that parents spent bringing youths to services. We created profiles of usual care service use and then estimated parent time spent in services, travel to services, and waiting time based on prior research.35,36,40

    Statistical Analyses

    We took a societal perspective when estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The time frame was from intake through 32-week follow-up; we were constrained to this time frame by the clinical trial design.20 We computed the ICERs as the mean cost difference between BBT and ARC divided by the mean difference in clinical outcome (eg, QALYs). All costs were adjusted for inflation. We used the net benefit regression method41 with ordinary least-squares regression. We confirmed the robustness of parametric tests using nonparametric bootstrapping42 with a single model with 1000 replications using the bias-corrected and accelerated method.43 We estimated adjusted differences between groups using ordinary least-squares regression models with bootstrap interval estimates. All costs are shown in 2014 US dollars. We adjusted for site and baseline values when appropriate.

    We used bootstrap observations to estimate a 95% CI around the mean ICER to represent uncertainty in the estimates. We next created scatter plots of bootstrapped cost-and-effect pairs to construct cost-effectiveness planes44 divided into 4 quadrants centered at 0 (Figure 1). If the majority of the cost-and-effect observations were located in the southeast quadrant, the program was considered to be less costly and more effective. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for QALYs was used to assess the probability that BBT was cost-effective compared with ARC over a range of amounts that a decision-maker might be willing to pay for an additional outcome (Figure 2). Statistical significance was set at a 2-sided α = .05.

    Supplemental Analyses

    We also conducted supplemental analyses to examine the robustness of results. Clinical outcomes from the RCT suggested that although BBT was effective overall, it was particularly effective for certain groups and outcomes.20,21 Hispanic youths had greater response to BBT across metrics, and depression trajectories were similar for BBT and ARC, with both treatment groups demonstrating improvement over time but neither treatment demonstrating superiority. We thus examined whether these factors moderated cost-effectiveness. We conducted subgroup analyses based on the moderating variables found in the main RCT. In addition, we tested the interaction between the potential moderating variable and treatment condition in the intention-to-treat sample.

    Missing Data

    Overall, 84.9% of youths completed the 32-week Child and Adolescent Services Assessment. We imputed missing data using multiple imputation with chained equations in Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp LLC).45,46 We included baseline demographic characteristics, functioning (Children’s Global Assessment Scale score), and depression level (Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised score) as well as all nonmissing values of costs or outcomes at all time points in the imputation models.21,46 We created 10 imputation data sets and combined estimates so that SEs reflected the variability introduced by the imputation process.46

    Results

    Enrolled patients included 185 youths (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [2.6] years; 107 [57.8%] female; 144 [77.8%] White; and 38 [20.7%] Hispanic). As reported elsewhere,20,21 baseline demographic and clinical characteristics did not differ significantly by group.20,21 Baseline usual care costs also did not differ significantly between groups.

    Clinical Outcomes

    In the base-case CEA, compared with youth who received ARC, those who received BBT experienced more AFDs (difference, 28.63 days; 95% CI, 5.86-50.71 days; P = .01) and QALYs (difference, 0.026; 95% CI, 0.009-0.046; P = .007) at 32 weeks. Youths who received BBT experienced more DFDs than did youths who received ARC (difference, 10.52 days; 95% CI, −4.50 to 25.76 days; P = .18), but the difference was not statistically significant.

    Service Use and Costs

    Table 1 and Table 2 show usual care service use by study condition and the mean (SD) costs of usual care and intervention services by condition, respectively. The mean (SD) cost of delivering the 12-session BBT intervention was significantly greater than the mean (SD) cost of ARC ($1183 [$341] vs $32 [$54]; P < .001). By design, youths in ARC were encouraged to use usual care services. The mean (SD) cost of usual care services was $2152 lower for BBT than for ARC ($2735 [$4708] vs $4887 [$9088]; P = .01). The difference in the mean total cost between BBT and ARC was –$1082 (95% CI, –3325 to 289; P = .24) over the 32-week period; this difference was not statistically significant.

    Cost-effectiveness Analysis

    Table 3 describes the clinical outcomes, the mean cost by group, and the ICERs. At 32 weeks, the estimated cost per AFD was –$38 (ICER, –$38; 95% CI, –$224 to $1), the estimated cost per DFD was −$103 (ICER, –$103; 95% CI, –$4705 to $107), and the estimated cost per QALY was –$41 414 (ICER, –$41 414; 95% CI, –$220 601 to $11 468). In all cases, the base-case analysis indicated that BBT was cost saving on average.

    Figure 1 shows the cost-effectiveness planes for the base-case analysis. Each point in the scatter plots represents a cost–clinical outcome pair for a single bootstrap replication. For all 3 outcomes (AFDs, DFDs, and QALYs) most of the observations (880 of 1000 observations [88%] for AFDs, 820 of 1000 [82%] for DFDs, and 880 of 1000 [88%] for QALYs) indicated better outcomes and lower costs at 32 weeks.

    Figure 2 shows the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for QALYs at 32 weeks for the base-case analysis. For example, if a decision-maker paid $50 000 per QALY, the probability that BBT would be cost-effective compared with ARC at 32 weeks was 95.6% (956 of 1000 replications).

    Supplemental Analyses

    Based on the original RCT results, we tested whether Hispanic ethnicity or youth depression status at baseline moderated the cost-effectiveness of BBT. Results of the moderation analyses were not statistically significant: ethnicity (for cost: coefficient, $943 [95% CI, −$5156 to $3270]; P = .67; for QALYs: coefficient, −0.034 [95% CI, −0.077 to 0.009]; P = .55) and depression (for cost: coefficient, $676 [95% CI, −$3825 to $2473]; P = .66; for QALYs: coefficient, 0.013 [95% CI, −0.034 to 0.060]; P = .12). These findings suggest that results were broadly robust among these factors. We conducted further exploratory analyses to examine whether cost-effectiveness varied by health system payer and family perspectives and excluding factors strongly associated with cost-effectiveness (eTable in the Supplement). Among the models, results indicated some variation in clinical significance and cost per QALY for different assumptions. However, in all cases, the upper limit of the 95% CI around the ICER indicated that the cost per QALY was below the threshold of $50 000 per QALY.

    Discussion

    This economic evaluation found that the cost of implementing BBT was low (mean [SD], $1183 [$341] per youth) but significantly greater than the cost of implementing ARC ($32 [$54] per youth). Furthermore, in the base-case CEA analyses, BBT was cost-saving on average, suggesting that BBT may be associated with improved outcomes and is cost-effective by most published standards.47 Our results build on prior research suggesting that youths with anxiety and/or depression can be successfully treated with a brief transdiagnostic psychosocial intervention.6-11 Although these results are promising, to our knowledge, few evidence-based interventions for either anxiety or depression are available in health care settings.15-17 One barrier has been a lack of information about the budgetary impact of programs and their long-term effects on health care costs.18

    Several other evaluations have found that psychotherapeutic interventions for youth anxiety and depression are cost-effective.28-31,48-52 All of these studies examined interventions that addressed either anxiety28-31 or depression50,51 but not both, and most were conducted outside the US.28-31 The most comparable studies examined the cost-effectiveness of individual psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety30 or depression50 and reported similar costs of BBT ($1000-$1500). To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of a transdiagnostic intervention aimed at treating anxiety, depression, or both.

    Transdiagnostic interventions are attractive in busy primary care settings, where training, staffing, and offering separate interventions may be challenging.15-18 An intervention that addresses both conditions may help increase the availability of treatment from the health system and family perspectives. Depression status at baseline did not significantly moderate our base-case results, supporting the cost-effectiveness of BBT for the outcomes of QALYs and AFDs. Cost-effectiveness for depression-specific outcomes is less clear because depression symptoms in both the BBT and the ARC groups improved and trajectories were not significantly different. Our results provide support for use of transdiagnostic interventions in primary care because BBT had improved or similar associations with a range of outcomes compared with usual care services.

    This study was designed to assess treatment options for pediatric primary care for several reasons. Primary care is the most common setting in which children are seen,53,54 and pediatric health care professionals are often trusted by parents and youths; this trust maybe be associated with reduced stigma related to initiating care among youths with anxiety and/or depression.55,56 Prior research suggests that delivering mental health care in primary care may be particularly important for publicly insured children or for those from non-White racial/ethnic groups.20,21 The RCT20,21 on BBT vs ARC indicated a significantly greater clinical effect of BBT on Hispanic youths compared with all other youths. We did not find significant moderation by ethnicity in the CEA likely owing to low power; however, BBT was cost-effective on average among racial/ethnic groups.

    The primary analysis was conducted from the societal perspective.39 However, other perspectives may be important. Results of the supplemental analyses from the health system payer perspective also indicated cost savings associated with the BBT intervention. In addition, the ARC comparison condition was designed to encourage families to engage in usual care and included multiple telephone calls to overcome barriers; comparison families engaged in usual care at high levels.12 For this reason, we believe that access to care was likely not the reason for the differences in outcomes between the BBT and ARC groups. One possibility is that BBT is focused on skills that more directly address symptoms compared with typical treatment in usual care settings.9,11

    Limitations

    This study has limitations. Although the study took place in 2 geographic areas (San Diego, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), additional research is needed to better understand the generalizability of our results. Anecdotally, the BBT intervention was well received by health care professionals; however, health care professionals’ satisfaction was not assessed, nor were reasons that clinics declined participation. We collected data on usual care services using self-report, which is subject to recall bias. We tried to minimize this concern by using a psychometrically sound instrument (the Child and Adolescent Services Assessment)38 used in prior studies35,36,40 and by using trained interviewers. We did not systematically test whether BBT was more cost-effective than delivering separate anxiety and depression interventions. The study period was brief; studying longer-term outcomes is an important next step. We used nationally representative unit costs to estimate costs of usual care service; these may not reflect costs at study sites.

    Conclusions

    In this economic evaluation, BBT in primary care was significantly associated with better outcomes and a greater probability of cost-effectiveness at 32 weeks compared with ARC. Results of this study suggest that dissemination of effective transdiagnostic interventions for anxiety and depression may be associated with improved health among youths and with reduced costs to the health care system and society.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: January 23, 2021.

    Published: March 15, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1778

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Lynch FL et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Frances L. Lynch, PhD, MSPH, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate, Portland, OR 97227 (frances.lynch@kpchr.org).

    Author Contributions: Drs Weersing and Dickerson had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Lynch, Dickerson, Brent, Weersing.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Lynch, Rozenman.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Dickerson, Rozenman, Gonzalez, Schwartz, Porta, O'Keeffe-Rosetti, Brent, Weersing.

    Statistical analysis: Lynch, Dickerson, Porta, O'Keeffe-Rosetti.

    Obtained funding: Lynch, Brent, Weersing.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Lynch, Dickerson, Rozenman, Schwartz, O'Keeffe-Rosetti, Brent, Weersing.

    Supervision: Lynch, Rozenman, Brent, Weersing.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lynch reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Dickerson reported receiving grants from National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Dr Rozenman reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the University of Denver, and the UCLA Clinical Translational Science Institute outside the submitted work. Dr O'Keeffe-Rosetti reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Brent reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the Once Upon a Time Foundation, and the Beckwith Foundation; receiving personal fees from ERT Inc, UpToDate, Guilford Press Royalties, Healthwise; and receiving honoraria from the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation outside the submitted work. Dr Weersing reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees from the National Institute of Health and grants from National Institute of Mental Health outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This study was funded by grants 5R01MH084935 (Dr Weersing) and 5R01MH084916 (Dr Brent) from the National Institute of Mental Health.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The National Institute of Mental Health had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Contributions: Jill Pope, BS (Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest), provided editorial support, and Mary Harper (Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest) provided administrative support. These individuals were not compensated for their help. We thank the patients, clinicians, staff, and administrators in San Diego and at Children’s Community Pediatrics, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Primary Care Center, the Pediatric Alliance, and the Clinical and Translational Science Institute Pediatric PittNet primary care research network in Pittsburgh.

    References
    1.
    Merikangas  KR, He  JP, Burstein  M,  et al.  Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A).   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49(10):980-989. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.05.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Bittner  A, Egger  HL, Erkanli  A, Jane Costello  E, Foley  DL, Angold  A.  What do childhood anxiety disorders predict?   J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48(12):1174-1183. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01812.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Costello  EJ, Egger  H, Angold  A.  10-Year research update review: the epidemiology of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders: I. Methods and public health burden.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005;44(10):972-986. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000172552.41596.6f PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Fergusson  DM, Woodward  LJ.  Mental health, educational, and social role outcomes of adolescents with depression.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59(3):225-231. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.3.225 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Woodward  LJ, Fergusson  DM.  Life course outcomes of young people with anxiety disorders in adolescence.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40(9):1086-1093. doi:10.1097/00004583-200109000-00018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    James  AC, James  G, Cowdrey  FA, Soler  A, Choke  A. Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(6):CD004690. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004690.pub3
    7.
    Reynolds  S, Wilson  C, Austin  J, Hooper  L.  Effects of psychotherapy for anxiety in children and adolescents: a meta-analytic review.   Clin Psychol Rev. 2012;32(4):251-262. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.01.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Asarnow  JR, Rozenman  MS, Carlson  GA.  Medication and cognitive behavioral therapy for pediatric anxiety disorders: no need for anxiety in treating anxiety.   JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(11):1038-1039. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Higa-McMillan  CK, Francis  SE, Rith-Najarian  L, Chorpita  BF.  Evidence base update: 50 years of research on treatment for child and adolescent anxiety.   J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2016;45(2):91-113. doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1046177 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Maalouf  FT, Brent  DA.  Child and adolescent depression intervention overview: what works, for whom and how well?   Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2012;21(2):299-312, viii. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2012.01.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Weersing  VR, Jeffreys  M, Do  MT, Schwartz  KT, Bolano  C.  Evidence base update of psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent depression.   J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2017;46(1):11-43. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1220310 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Merikangas  KR, He  JP, Burstein  M,  et al.  Service utilization for lifetime mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: results of the National Comorbidity Survey–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A).   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50(1):32-45. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.10.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Greenberg  PE, Sisitsky  T, Kessler  RC,  et al.  The economic burden of anxiety disorders in the 1990s.   J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60(7):427-435. doi:10.4088/JCP.v60n0702 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Lépine  JP.  The epidemiology of anxiety disorders: prevalence and societal costs.   J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;63(suppl 14):4-8.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Higa-McMillan  C, Kotte  A, Jackson  D, Daleiden  EL.  Overlapping and non-overlapping practices in usual and evidence-based care for youth anxiety.   J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(4):684-694. doi:10.1007/s11414-016-9502-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Ollendick  TH, Ryan  SM, Capriola-Hall  NN, Austin  KE, Fraire  M.  Have phobias, will travel: addressing one barrier to the delivery of an evidence-based treatment.   Behav Ther. 2018;49(4):594-603. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2017.11.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Wolitzky-Taylor  K, Zimmermann  M, Arch  JJ, De Guzman  E, Lagomasino  I.  Has evidence-based psychosocial treatment for anxiety disorders permeated usual care in community mental health settings?   Behav Res Ther. 2015;72:9-17. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2015.06.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Palinkas  LA, Um  MY, Jeong  CH,  et al.  Adoption of innovative and evidence-based practices for children and adolescents in state-supported mental health clinics: a qualitative study.   Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):27. doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0190-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Fusar-Poli  P, Solmi  M, Brondino  N,  et al.  Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review.   World Psychiatry. 2019;18(2):192-207. doi:10.1002/wps.20631 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Weersing  VR, Brent  DA, Rozenman  MS,  et al.  Brief behavioral therapy for pediatric anxiety and depression in primary care: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(6):571-578. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0429 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Brent  DA, Porta  G, Rozenman  MS,  et al.  Brief behavioral therapy for pediatric anxiety and depression in primary care: a follow-up.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(7):856-867. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2019.06.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Kaufman  J, Birmaher  B, Brent  D,  et al.  Schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia for School-Age Children–Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): initial reliability and validity data.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(7):980-988. doi:10.1097/00004583-199707000-00021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Guy  W. Clinical Global Impression Scale. In:Guy W, ed.  ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. National Institute of Mental Health;1976:218-222.
    24.
    Shaffer  D, Gould  MS, Brasic  J,  et al.  A children’s global assessment scale (CGAS).   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983;40(11):1228-1231. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790100074010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
     The Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS): development and psychometric properties.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;41(9):1061-1069. doi:10.1097/00004583-200209000-00006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Poznanski  EO, Mokros  HB.  Children’s DepressionRatingScale–Revised,Manual. WesternPsychologicalServices; 1996.
    27.
    Torrance  GW, Feeny  DH, Furlong  WJ, Barr  RD, Zhang  Y, Wang  Q.  Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2.   Med Care. 1996;34(7):702-722. doi:10.1097/00005650-199607000-00004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Bodden  DH, Dirksen  CD, Bögels  SM,  et al.  Costs and cost-effectiveness of family CBT versus individual CBT in clinically anxious children.   Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;13(4):543-564. doi:10.1177/1359104508090602 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Mihalopoulos  C, Magnus  A, Lal  A, Dell  L, Forbes  D, Phelps  A.  Is implementation of the 2013 Australian treatment guidelines for posttraumatic stress disorder cost-effective compared to current practice? a cost-utility analysis using QALYs and DALYs.   Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(4):360-376. doi:10.1177/0004867414553948 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Chatterton  ML, Rapee  RM, Catchpool  M,  et al.  Economic evaluation of stepped care for the management of childhood anxiety disorders: results from a randomised trial.   Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2019;53(7):673-682. doi:10.1177/0004867418823272 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Creswell  C, Violato  M, Fairbanks  H,  et al.  Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of brief guided parent-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and solution-focused brief therapy for treatment of childhood anxiety disorders: a randomised controlled trial.   Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4(7):529-539. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30149-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Joesch  JM, Sherbourne  CD, Sullivan  G, Stein  MB, Craske  MG, Roy-Byrne  P.  Incremental benefits and cost of coordinated anxiety learning and management for anxiety treatment in primary care.   Psychol Med. 2012;42(9):1937-1948. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002893 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Egger  N, Konnopka  A, Beutel  ME,  et al.  Long-term cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy versus psychodynamic therapy in social anxiety disorder.   Depress Anxiety. 2016;33(12):1114-1122. doi:10.1002/da.22540 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Katon  W, Russo  J, Sherbourne  C,  et al.  Incremental cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for panic disorder.   Psychol Med. 2006;36(3):353-363. doi:10.1017/S0033291705006896 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Lynch  FL, Dickerson  JF, Clarke  GN,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of preventing depression among at-risk youths: postintervention and 2-year follow-up.   Psychiatr Serv. 2019;70(4):279-286. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201800144 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Lynch  FL, Dickerson  JF, Clarke  G,  et al.  Incremental cost-effectiveness of combined therapy vs medication only for youth with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-resistant depression: treatment of SSRI-resistant depression in adolescents trial findings.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(3):253-262. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Simon  GE, Ludman  EJ, Rutter  CM.  Incremental benefit and cost of telephone care management and telephone psychotherapy for depression in primary care.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(10):1081-1089. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.123 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Ascher  BH, Farmer  EMZ, Burns  BJ, Angold  A.  The Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA) description and psychometrics.   JEmot BehavDisord. 1996;4(1):12-20.Google Scholar
    39.
    Gold  MR,Siegel  JE,Russell  LB,Weinstein  MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford Press University; 1996.
    40.
    Domino  ME, Burns  BJ, Silva  SG,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of treatments for adolescent depression: results from TADS.   Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(5):588-596. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07101610 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Hoch  JS, Briggs  AH, Willan  AR.  Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis.   Health Econ. 2002;11(5):415-430. doi:10.1002/hec.678 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Efron  B, Tibshirani  RJ.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall; 1993. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9
    43.
    Thompson  SG, Barber  JA.  How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed?   BMJ. 2000;320(7243):1197-1200. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1197 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Fenwick  E, Byford  S.  A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.   Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:106-108. doi:10.1192/bjp.187.2.106 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Potthoff  RF, Tudor  GE, Pieper  KS, Hasselblad  V.  Can one assess whether missing data are missing at random in medical studies?   Stat Methods Med Res. 2006;15(3):213-234. doi:10.1191/0962280206sm448oaPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Royston  P.  Multiple imputation of missing values.   Stata J 2004;4:227–241. doi:10.1177/1536867X0400400301Google ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Cleemput  I, Neyt  M, Thiry  N, De Laet  C, Leys  M.  Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions.   Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):71-76. doi:10.1017/S0266462310001194 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Ophuis  RH, Lokkerbol  J, Heemskerk  SC, van Balkom  AJ, Hiligsmann  M, Evers  SM.  Cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating anxiety disorders: a systematic review.   J Affect Disord. 2017;210:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Lee  YY, Barendregt  JJ, Stockings  EA,  et al.  The population cost-effectiveness of delivering universal and indicated school-based interventions to prevent the onset of major depression among youth in Australia.   Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2017;26(5):545-564. doi:10.1017/S2045796016000469 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Wright  DR, Haaland  WL, Ludman  E, McCauley  E, Lindenbaum  J, Richardson  LP.  The costs and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for adolescents with depression in primary care settings: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(11):1048-1054. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1721 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Dickerson  JF, Lynch  FL, Leo  MC, DeBar  LL, Pearson  J, Clarke  GN.  Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for depressed youth declining antidepressants.   Pediatrics. 2018;141(2):e20171969. doi:10.1542/peds.2017-1969 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    52.
    Andersen  P, Toner  P, Bland  M, McMillan  D.  Effectiveness of transdiagnostic cognitive behaviour therapy for anxiety and depression in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Behav Cogn Psychother. 2016;44(6):673-690. doi:10.1017/S1352465816000229 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Rozenman  M, Patarino  KM.  Pediatric anxiety in practice: a knowledge and needs assessment of pediatricians and nurses.   J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2020;41(8):605-611. doi:10.1097/DBP.0000000000000821 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Brown  JD, Riley  AW, Wissow  LS.  Identification of youth psychosocial problems during pediatric primary care visits.   Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007;34(3):269-281. doi:10.1007/s10488-006-0106-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Kelleher  KJ, Campo  JV, Gardner  WP.  Management of pediatric mental disorders in primary care: where are we now and where are we going?   Curr Opin Pediatr. 2006;18(6):649-653. doi:10.1097/MOP.0b013e3280106a76 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    Kolko  DJ, Perrin  E.  The integration of behavioral health interventions in children’s health care: services, science, and suggestions.   J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2014;43(2):216-228. doi:10.1080/15374416.2013.862804 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×