Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness evidence of mental health prevention and promotion interventions: A systematic review of economic evaluations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.

Methods and findings

Electronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.

Conclusions

Our review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.

SUBMITTER: Le LK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8148329 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) has profound quality of life and economic consequences for individuals, their family, formal services and wider society. Little is known about which therapeutic interventions are more cost-effective.ObjectiveA systematic review was carried out to identify and critically appraise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CFS/ME interventions.MethodsThe review protocol was prespecified (PROSPERO: CRD42018118731). Searches were carried out across two databases-MEDLINE (1946-2020) and EMBASE (1974-2020). Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. Only peer-reviewed journal articles of full economic evaluations examining CFS/ME interventions were included. Trial- and/or model-based economic evaluations were eligible. Data extraction and screening were carried out independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the economic evaluation and trial were assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist (CHEC-list) and Risk of Bias-2 (RoB-2) tool, respectively. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise the economic evidence for interventions for adults and children in primary and secondary care settings.ResultsTen economic evaluations, all based on data derived from randomised controlled trials, met our eligibility criteria. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was evaluated across five studies, making it the most commonly evaluated intervention. There was evidence from three trials to support CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, findings on CBT were not uniform, suggesting that cost-effectiveness may be context-specific. A wide array of other interventions were evaluated in adults, including limited evidence from two trials supporting the cost effectiveness of graded exercise therapy (GET). Just one study assessed intervention options for children. Our review highlighted the importance of informal care costs and productivity losses in the evaluation of CFS/ME interventions.ConclusionsWe identified a limited patchwork of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for CFS/ME. Evidence supports CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, cost-effectiveness may depend on the duration and frequency of sessions. Limited evidence supports the cost effectiveness of GET. Key weaknesses in the literature included small sample sizes and short duration of follow-up. Further research is needed on pharmacological interventions and therapies for children.

Project description:BackgroundPrehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.ResultsWe included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.ConclusionsWe found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Project description:BackgroundKidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a lifesaving but costly treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The objective of this study was to review full economic evaluations comparing KRT modalities specified as hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and kidney transplantation (KT) for patients with ESKD.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature from PubMed, Embase, EconLit (EBSCO), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and CRD Health Technology Assessment Database from inception until 5 January 2020. Full economic evaluations were included if they compared three forms of KRT specified as PD, HD, and KT. The reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsTen studies were identified in the review. The majority of the studies were model-based evaluations and included a cost-utility analysis. Four studies were conducted from a public healthcare perspective, three from a societal perspective, and three from a third-party payer perspective. None of the studies adequately addressed all the applicable items of the CHEERS checklist. The most infrequently reported items were characterizing heterogeneity, target population, and characterizing uncertainty. There is a lack of studies that conduct from a societal perspective and take into account characterizing heterogeneity. All included studies indicate that KT is the most cost-effective KRT modality, with either a dominant position over HD and PD or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well below the accepted willingness-to-pay threshold. The majority of studies suggest that PD is less costly and offers comparable or better health outcomes than HD.ConclusionsOur systematic review suggests that KT is the most cost-effective KRT modality, but there is no firm conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of HD and PD. Further economic evaluations can be conducted from a societal perspective and detail the evidence for subsets of patients with different characteristics.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of methodological challenges in economic evaluations of disease prevention and health promotion (DPHP)-measures.MethodsWe conducted an overview of reviews searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DOPHER) (from their inception to October 2021). We included both systematic and scoping reviews of economic evaluations in DPHP addressing following methodological aspects: (i) attribution of effects, (ii) outcomes, (iii) inter-sectoral (accruing to non-health sectors of society) costs and consequences and (iv) equity. Data were extracted according to the associated sub-criteria of the four methodological aspects including study design economic evaluation (e.g. model-based), type/scope of the outcomes (e.g. outcomes beyond health), perspective, cost categories related to non-health sectors of society, and consideration of equity (method of inclusion). Two reviewers independently screened all citations, full-text articles, and extracted data. A narrative synthesis without a meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis methods was conducted.ResultsThe reviewing process resulted in ten systematic and one scoping review summarizing 494 health economic evaluations. A lifelong time horizon was adopted in about 23% of DPHP evaluations, while 64% of trial-based evaluations had a time horizon up to 2 years. Preference-based outcomes (36%) and non-health outcomes (8%) were only applied in a minority of studies. Although the inclusion of inter-sectoral costs (i.e. costs accruing to non-health sectors of society) has increased in recent years, these were often neglected (between 6 and 23% depending on the cost category). Consideration to equity was barely given in economic evaluations, and only addressed in six of the eleven reviews.ConclusionsEconomic evaluations of DPHP measures give only little attention to the specific methodological challenges related to this area. For future economic DPHP evaluations a tool with structured guidance should be developed. This overview of reviews was not registered and a published protocol does not exist.

Project description:IntroductionScaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions.Methods and analysisUsing the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.