Table 1 |
|||||||
|
Study characteristics and results |
|||||||
|
Source |
Evaluation type |
Country |
Intervention |
Source effectiveness data |
Type of data |
Time horizon |
Results* |
|
|
|||||||
|
Programmes to prevent depression/sucide |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Smit et al. (2006) [38] |
CEA |
Nether-lands |
Minimal contact-therapy for primary prevention of depression |
Pragmatic RCT |
Primary data |
1 yr |
80% probability of cost-effectiveness if WTP per case avoided is below US$ 23,000 |
|
Petrou et al. (2006) [39] |
CEA |
UK |
Home visiting therapist f. primary prevention of post-natal depression |
Pragmatic RCT |
Primary data |
18 months |
70% probability of cost-effectiveness if WTP per depressive month avoided is below US$ 1,800 |
|
Lynch et al. (2006) [46] |
CEA |
USA |
CBT for high at risk teens for depression |
RCT |
Secondary data |
1 yr |
US$ -14 to US$ 24 per DFD; US$ -12,200 to US$ 3,400 per QALY |
|
Valenstein et al. (2001) [47] |
CUA |
USA |
Various types of Screening for depression |
Secondary literat./not specified; Meta-analysis of RCTs |
Simulation/modelling |
Life-time |
Cost utility ratios unfavourable; 1-time screening compared to no screening lowest ICUR(on average US$ 47,000 per QALY) |
|
|
|||||||
|
Sari et al. (2007) [49] |
CBA |
USA |
General education and peer support to prevent suicide in high-school |
Secondary literature/not specified |
Simulation/modelling |
1 yr |
Net benefit: US$ 21 million and US$ 32 million respectively; ratio: US$ 2.36:1 and US$ 4.3:1 |
|
Zaloshnja et al. (2003) [44] |
CUA/CBA |
USA |
Lay people training for crisis-support |
Prospective observational trial |
Secondary data |
10 yrs |
Benefit-cost ratio: 47:1; ICUR: US$ 460 per QALY |
|
Appleby et al. (2000) [42] |
CEA |
UK |
Education for health professionals to assess and manage suicidal patients |
Prospective observational trial |
Primary data |
1 yr |
US$ 6,200 per LYG; US$ 183,000 per suicide prevented |
|
Byford et al. (1999) [41] |
CCA |
UK |
Social work intervention for adolescents with risk for self-harm |
Pragmatic RCT |
Primary data |
5 months |
Intervention not more effective and not more costly |
|
Rutz et al. (1992) [45] |
CBA |
Sweden |
Educational programme for GPs to detect depression |
Prospective observational trial |
Secondary data |
Life-time |
Net benefit: US$ 37 million |
|
|
|||||||
|
Programmes that address overall risk factors for mental disorders |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Wiggins et al. (2004) [40] |
CCA |
UK |
Post-natal support for young mothers in deprived city areas |
Pragmatic RCT |
Primary data |
18 months |
Interventions not more effective and not cost saving |
|
McAuley et al. (2004) [43] |
CEA, CCA |
UK |
Home start support for young families |
Prospective observational trial |
Primary data |
11 months |
Intervention not more effective and more costly |
|
|
|||||||
|
Schweinhart (2005) [48] |
CBA |
USA |
Early child development programme (ECD) |
Pragmatic RCT |
Simulation/modelling |
40 yrs |
US $ 19.81 return per invested US$ |
|
Lynch (2004) [36] |
CBA |
USA |
ECD |
Several pragmatic RCTs |
Simulation/modelling |
45 yrs |
After 17 yrs: budget benefits outweigh costs; benefit-cost ratios: US$ 4.01 to 9.27 per $ invested |
|
Aos et al. (2004) [37] |
CBA |
USA |
Several type of childhood and adolescent support programmes |
Systematic review of RCTs |
Simulation/modelling |
Life-time |
From net-benefit of US$ 33,100 to net costs of US$ 52,000 depending on programme |
|
|
|||||||
|
CBA: Cost benefit analysis; CCA: cost-consequence analysis; CEA: Cost effectiveness analysis; CUA: Cost utility analysis; DFD: depression free day; ICUR: Incremental cost utility ratio; LYG: Life year gained; QALY: quality adjusted life years; RCT: Randomised controlled trial; WTP: willingness to pay; * original results have been converted into US$ according to GDP-PPP where required and inflated to 2006 price levels |
|||||||
|
Zechmeister et al. BMC Public Health 2008 8:20 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-20 |
|||||||
