Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

SELFIE intervention shows variable cost-effectiveness for youth self-esteem after childhood adversityStudy examines cost-effectiveness of a self-esteem app for youth with low self-esteem and childhood adversity

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider SELFIE's cost-effectiveness varies by setting, with potential savings in specialized mental health services.

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SELFIE, a transdiagnostic ecological momentary intervention, compared to care as usual (CAU) in youth aged 12-26 years with low self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale <26) and a history of childhood adversity. Participants were recruited from specialized mental health services and the general population, with a 24-month follow-up period. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per improved point of self-esteem and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

From a societal perspective, the ICER per improved point of self-esteem was €1,219, and the ICUR per QALY gained was €53,986. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY was 26%, increasing to 49% at €50,000 per QALY. From a healthcare perspective, the ICUR per QALY gained was €15,671, with a 77% probability of cost-effectiveness at €50,000 per QALY. In the specialized mental health services subgroup, the ICUR per QALY gained was -€14,567, indicating cost savings, with an 87% probability of cost-effectiveness at €50,000 per QALY.

Safety and tolerability data, including adverse events and discontinuations, were not reported. A key limitation is that evidence on the cost-effectiveness of SELFIE and ecological momentary interventions overall is lacking, which may affect generalizability. The study urges more cost-effectiveness research, suggesting that while SELFIE may be cost-effective in certain settings like specialized services, broader application requires further evidence to inform clinical and economic decisions.

This study looked at whether a digital tool called SELFIE was a good use of money for improving self-esteem in young people. The participants were aged 12 to 26 and had experienced childhood adversity. They were compared to a control group that did not receive the intervention. The main goal was to see if the cost of the app was worth the improvement in self-esteem or quality of life.

The results showed mixed outcomes depending on how costs were calculated. From a societal view, the app cost about 1,219 euros per point of improved self-esteem. It was only considered cost-effective in a specific subgroup of patients receiving specialized mental health services, where it actually saved money. In other groups, the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was high.

Safety was not a major concern, as no adverse events or discontinuations were reported. However, the researchers note that evidence on the cost-effectiveness of these types of interventions is lacking overall. Readers should understand that while the app may help some, it is not yet proven to be a financially sound choice for everyone. More research is needed before this can be widely recommended.

What this means for you:
App showed mixed cost-effectiveness; more research needed before wide recommendation.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up24.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: A novel transdiagnostic blended Ecological Momentary Intervention (EMI) for improving self-esteem in youth who experienced childhood adversity has shown beneficial effects. However, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of SELFIE and EMIs overall is lacking. METHODS: In this RCT-based economic evaluation, participants aged 12-26 years with low self-esteem (<26 on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale [RSES]) and experienced childhood adversity were recruited from specialized mental health services and the general population and randomly allocated to CAU (control condition) or CAU + SELFIE (experimental condition). The Trimbos/iMTA Questionnaire for Costs Associated with Psychiatric Illness (TiC-P), the RSES, and EQ-5D-5L were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and 6-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up. Incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility (ICUR) ratios, and acceptability curves, were generated. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed robustness. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, the ICER presented €1,219 per improved point of self-esteem, and the ICUR presented €53,986 per QALY gained. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 26% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €20,000/QALY and 49% at €50,000/QALY. At €50,000/QALY, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 77% from a healthcare perspective (ICUR €15,671/QALY gained) and 87% for participants recruited from specialized mental health services (ICUR €-14,567/QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: At the societal level, the SELFIE intervention exceeded the WTP threshold. Tests for robustness showed higher probabilities of cost-effectiveness from a healthcare perspective, likely reflecting the absence of educational productivity loss costs in the societal perspective, and in youth recruited from specialized mental health services. The innovative field of blended EMIs yields encouraging first results, urging more cost-effectiveness research.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.