Implementing cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced in a routine inpatient and outpatient setting: Comparing effectiveness and treatment costs in two consecutive cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Even though evidence-based interventions can enhance clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness, in the field of eating disorders, implementation of empirically supported treatments (ESTs) in routine inpatient and outpatient settings is slow.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined differential (cost-) effectiveness, after implementing evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced (CBT-E) throughout a Dutch treatment center.
METHOD: Two consecutive cohorts of adult patients, BMI between 17.5 and 40, were compared, with one cohort (N = 239) receiving treatment-as-usual (TAU) between 2012 and 2014 and the other (N = 320) receiving CBT-E between 2015 and 2017.
RESULTS: Eating disorder pathology, measured with self-reports, decreased significantly in both cohorts; overall, no differences in clinical outcomes between both cohorts were found. Treatment costs and treatment duration were considerably lower in 2015-2017. When limiting the cost analysis to direct costs, there is a 71% likelihood that CBT-E is more cost-effective and a 29% likelihood that CBT-E leads to fewer remissions at lower costs, based on the distribution of the cost-effectiveness plane. The likelihood that TAU leads to lower costs is 0%. DISCUSSION: Findings show that implementing an EST throughout inpatient and outpatient settings leads to lower costs with similar treatment effect and has the advantage of shorter treatment duration and a shorter inpatient stay.