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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]