%0 Journal Article %@ 1438-8871 %I JMIR Publications %V 23 %N 5 %P e25609 %T Guided Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia: Health-Economic Evaluation From the Societal and Public Health Care Perspective Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial %A Buntrock,Claudia %A Lehr,Dirk %A Smit,Filip %A Horvath,Hanne %A Berking,Matthias %A Spiegelhalder,Kai %A Riper,Heleen %A Ebert,David Daniel %+ Chair of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nägelsbachstr 25a, Erlangen, 91052, Germany, 49 09131 8567568, claudia.buntrock@fau.de %K insomnia %K internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy %K iCBT-I %K economic evaluation %K cost-effectiveness %K cost-utility %K cognitive behavioral therapy %K behavior %K sleep %K economics %K public health %K perspective %D 2021 %7 24.5.2021 %9 Original Paper %J J Med Internet Res %G English %X Background: The evidence base for internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (iCBT-I) is firm; however, little is known about iCBT-I’s health-economic effects. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost–utility of iCBT-I in reducing insomnia among schoolteachers. Methods: Schoolteachers (N=128) with clinically significant insomnia symptoms and work-related rumination were randomized to guided iCBT-I or a wait list control group, both with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Health care use, patient and family expenditures, and productivity losses were self-assessed and used for costing from a societal and a public health care perspective. Costs were related to symptom-free status (score <8 on the insomnia severity index) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Sampling error was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping. Results: Statistically significant differences favoring the intervention group were found for both health outcomes (symptom-free status yes or no: β=.30; 95% CI 0.16-0.43; QALYs: β=.019, 95% CI 0.01-0.03). From a societal perspective, iCBT-I had a 94% probability of dominating the wait list control for both health outcomes. From a public health care perspective, iCBT-I was more effective but also more expensive than the wait list control, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €650 per symptom-free individual. In terms of QALYs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €11,285. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained, the intervention’s probability of being cost-effective was 89%. Conclusions: Our trial indicates that iCBT could be considered as a good value-for-money intervention for insomnia. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trial Registry: DRKS00004700; https://tinyurl.com/2nnk57jm International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/1745-6215-14-169 %M 34028361 %R 10.2196/25609 %U https://www.jmir.org/2021/5/e25609 %U https://doi.org/10.2196/25609 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34028361