Fig 1.
a, b. Simplified Markov model of university students with mild symptoms of anxiety. CBT: cognitive-behavioral therapy; f-CBT: face-to-face cognitive-behavioral therapy; i-CBT: internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy.
Table 1.
Model inputs.
Table 2.
Base-case (deterministic) and probabilistic results.
Fig 2.
One-way sensitivity analysis on change of QALY against relative difference of i-CBT versus f-CBT in (a) acceptance of CBT and (b) adherence to CBT. CBT: cognitive-behavioral therapy f-CBT: face-to-face cognitive-behavioral therapy; i-CBT: internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy; QALY: quality-adjusted life-year.
Fig 3.
Two-way sensitivity analysis of acceptance and adherence to CBT on cost-effectiveness of i-CBT.
Threshold line divided the grey zone and white zone; combinations of variables on threshold line had the same cost-effectiveness for i-CBT and f-CBT; white zone: combinations of variables leaded to i-CBT to be cost-effective; grey zone: combinations of variables leaded to f-CBT to be cost-effective. CBT: cognitive-behavioral therapy; f-CBT: face-to-face cognitive-behavioral therapy; i-CBT: internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy; QALY: quality-adjusted life-year.
Fig 4.
Scatterplot of incremental cost against QALYs gained by i-CBT versus f-CBT.
f-CBT: face-to-face cognitive-behavioral therapy; i-CBT: internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy; QALY: quality-adjusted life-year.
Fig 5.
Acceptability curves of i-CBT and f-CBT to be cost-effective against willingness-to-pay.
f-CBT: face-to-face cognitive-behavioral therapy; i-CBT: internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy.