Dina Jankovic1, Laura Bojke2, David Marshall3, Pedro Saramago Goncalves2, Rachel Churchill3, Hollie Melton3, Sally Brabyn4, Lina Gega5. 1. Centre for Health Economics, The University of York, Alcuin College, A Block, York, YO10 5DD, UK. dina.jankovic@york.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Health Economics, The University of York, Alcuin College, A Block, York, YO10 5DD, UK. 3. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK. 4. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK. 5. Department of Health Sciences and Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Investment in digital interventions for mental health conditions is growing rapidly, offering the potential to elevate systems that are currently overstretched. Despite a growing literature on economic evaluation of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs), including several systematic reviews, there is no conclusive evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness. This paper reviews the methodology used to determine their cost-effectiveness and assesses whether this meets the requirements for decision-making. In doing so we consider the challenges specific to the economic evaluation of DMHIs, and identify where consensus and possible further research is warranted. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify all economic evaluations of DMHIs published between 1997 and December 2018. The searches included databases of published and unpublished research, reference lists and citations of all included studies, forward citations on all identified protocols and conference abstracts, and contacting authors researchers in the field. The identified studies were critiqued against a published set of requirements for decision-making in healthcare, identifying methodological challenges and areas where consensus is required. RESULTS: The review identified 67 papers evaluating DMHIs. The majority of the evaluations were conducted alongside trials, failing to capture all relevant available evidence and comparators, and long-term impact of mental health disorders. The identified interventions are complex and heterogeneous. As a result, there are a number of challenges specific to their evaluation, including estimation of all costs and outcomes, conditional on analysis viewpoint, and identification of relevant comparators. A taxonomy for DMHIs may be required to inform what interventions can reasonably be pooled and compared. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first attempt to understand the appropriateness of the methodologies used to evaluate the value for money of DMHIs, helping work towards consensus and methods' harmonisation on these complex interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Investment in digital interventions for mental health conditions is growing rapidly, offering the potential to elevate systems that are currently overstretched. Despite a growing literature on economic evaluation of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs), including several systematic reviews, there is no conclusive evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness. This paper reviews the methodology used to determine their cost-effectiveness and assesses whether this meets the requirements for decision-making. In doing so we consider the challenges specific to the economic evaluation of DMHIs, and identify where consensus and possible further research is warranted. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify all economic evaluations of DMHIs published between 1997 and December 2018. The searches included databases of published and unpublished research, reference lists and citations of all included studies, forward citations on all identified protocols and conference abstracts, and contacting authors researchers in the field. The identified studies were critiqued against a published set of requirements for decision-making in healthcare, identifying methodological challenges and areas where consensus is required. RESULTS: The review identified 67 papers evaluating DMHIs. The majority of the evaluations were conducted alongside trials, failing to capture all relevant available evidence and comparators, and long-term impact of mental health disorders. The identified interventions are complex and heterogeneous. As a result, there are a number of challenges specific to their evaluation, including estimation of all costs and outcomes, conditional on analysis viewpoint, and identification of relevant comparators. A taxonomy for DMHIs may be required to inform what interventions can reasonably be pooled and compared. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first attempt to understand the appropriateness of the methodologies used to evaluate the value for money of DMHIs, helping work towards consensus and methods' harmonisation on these complex interventions.
Authors: Y Y Lee; J J Barendregt; E A Stockings; A J Ferrari; H A Whiteford; G A Patton; C Mihalopoulos Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Barry Wright; Lucy Tindall; Elizabeth Littlewood; Victoria Allgar; Paul Abeles; Dominic Trépel; Shehzad Ali Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Felix Naughton; Sue Cooper; Katharine Foster; Joanne Emery; Jo Leonardi-Bee; Stephen Sutton; Matthew Jones; Michael Ussher; Rachel Whitemore; Matthew Leighton; Alan Montgomery; Steve Parrott; Tim Coleman Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Lina Gega; Dina Jankovic; Pedro Saramago; David Marshall; Sarah Dawson; Sally Brabyn; Georgios F Nikolaidis; Hollie Melton; Rachel Churchill; Laura Bojke Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Dina Jankovic; Pedro Saramago Goncalves; Lina Gega; David Marshall; Kath Wright; Meena Hafidh; Rachel Churchill; Laura Bojke Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2021-12-27