|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$936||Benefits minus costs||$537|
|Participants||$13||Benefit to cost ratio||$1.74|
|Others||$211||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||$104||benefits greater than the costs||47 %|
|Net program cost||($727)|
|Benefits minus cost||$537|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Health care associated with psychiatric hospitalization||$936||$13||$211||$468||$1,628|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($364)||($364)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$693||2015||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($727)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2015||Cost range (+ or -)||15 %|
|Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)|
|The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment age||No. of effect sizes||Treatment N||Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis||Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)|
|First time ES is estimated||Second time ES is estimated|
|Psychosis symptoms (negative)^||40||3||53||-0.433||0.209||40||n/a||n/a||n/a||-0.433||0.038|
|Psychosis symptoms (positive)^||40||3||53||-0.230||0.198||40||n/a||n/a||n/a||-0.230||0.247|
Bach, P., & Hayes, S.C. (2002). The use of acceptance and commitment therapy to prevent the rehospitalization of psychotic patients: a randomized controlled trial., Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, (5), 1129-39.
Gaudiano, B.A., & Herbert, J.D. (2006). Acute treatment of inpatients with psychotic symptoms using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Pilot results. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, (3), 415-437.
White, R., Gumley, A., McTaggart, J., Rattrie, L., McConville, D., Cleare, S., & Mitchell, G. (2011). A feasibility study of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for emotional dysfunction following psychosis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49, (12), 901-907.
Shawyer, F., Farhall, J., Mackinnon, A., Trauer, T., Sims, E., Ratcliff, K., Larner, C., ... Copolov, D. (2012). A randomised controlled trial of acceptance-based cognitive behavioural therapy for command hallucinations in psychotic disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50, (2), 110-121.
Tyrberg, M.J., Carlbring, P., Lundgren, T., Tyrberg, M.J., & Lundgren, T. (2016). Brief acceptance and commitment therapy for psychotic inpatients: A randomized controlled feasibility trial in Sweden. Nordic Psychology, 1-16.