Objectives: In a randomized controlled trial brief sex counselling (BSC), intensive sexual healthcare (ISH) and no treatment (NT) for adolescents with a sexual dysfunction were compared. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of BSC versus ISH and NT from a societal perspective.
Methods: Costs, sexual functioning and quality of life were measured during 6 months. Primary outcome measures were measured with the Female Sexual Functional Index, the International Index of Erectile Function and the utilities reflecting Quality of Life based on the SF-36. Uncertainty was dealt with by using bootstrap replications and sensitivity analyses.
Results: Results show that the societal costs were the highest for ISH followed by NT and BSC. The difference in costs between ISH compared to NT and BSC was significant. Furthermore, there were no significant group differences in sexual functioning or quality of life. With respect to the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, BSC can be considered to be a suitable treatment for adolescents with a sexual dysfunction.
Conclusion: Due to the lack of a significant difference in clinical effect, it can be concluded that BSC is the cheapest treatment option when implementing the intention-to-treat, besides a no treatment option, for adolescents with a sexual dysfunction.