ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2025
Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy versus health education for sleep disturbance and fatigue following stroke and traumatic brain injury.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate cost, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for sleep and fatigue (CBT-SF) vs health education (HE) and of CBT-SF vs treatment as usual (TAU) for sleep disturbance and fatigue in acquired brain injury.
designEconomic evaluation from Australian health system and societal perspectives based on data from a June 2017 to October 2023 randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS: Community-dwelling Australian adults with sleep disturbance and fatigue following acquired brain injury (n = 126).
methodsIncremental health system costs based on cost of delivery and health service utilization since last follow-up. Incremental effectiveness based on participant-reported sleep quality, fatigue, and quality of life at each timepoint. Productivity gains/losses based on a 1-week activity diary at each timepoint.
resultsReductions in health service utilization from CBT-SF (-A$777, 95% CI: -A$4,232, A$2,678) offset higher delivery costs (A$333, 95% CI: A$109, A$556) relative to HE, with improvements in quality of life at 2 months post-treatment (0.02, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.05) and an additional 3.37 quality-adjusted life days per participant (95% CI: -4.18, 10.92). CBT-SF dominates HE (less costly and more effective) and is likely more cost-effective than HE (66-76%). CBT-SF is cost-effective relative to TAU under realistic assumptions.
conclusionsCBT-SF after acquired brain injury improved clinical and economic outcomes and was more likely to be cost-effective than HE. Further research is required to precisely estimate the cost-effectiveness of CBT-SF vs TAU and to demonstrate generalizability to routine practice and other settings. ANZCTR Trial registration numbers: 1261700087830; 12617000879369.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.