Conclusion
Despite high intervention costs, I-MORE was found cost-effective compared to O-ACT in a societal perspective with a two-year follow-up period. This was supported by both the cost-effectiveness and the cost-benefit analyses. We found that the costs of I-MORE was higher than the cost of O-ACT during the first year, but the effect of I-MORE on production loss during the second year outweighed the intervention costs over time. These results underscore the importance of long-term follow-up and will be of interest for both clinicians and planners of health policy.