Health Economics Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Health Sciences Faculty, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa.
Curtin enAble Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, WA 6102, Australia.
Health Policy Plan. 2023 Feb 13;38(2):239-260. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czac069.
Common mental disorders (CMDs) constitute a major public health and economic burden on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic reviews of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs are limited. This systematic review examines methods, reports findings and appraises the quality of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs. We searched a range of bibliographic databases (including PubMed, EconLit, APA-PsycINFO and Cochrane library) and the African Journals Online (AJoL) and Google Scholar platforms. We used a pre-populated template to extract data and the Drummond & Jefferson checklist for quality appraisal. We present results as a narrative synthesis. The review included 26 studies, mostly from Asia (12) and Africa (9). The majority were cost-effectiveness analyses (12), some were cost-utility analyses (5), with one cost-benefit analysis or combinations of economic evaluations (8). Most interventions were considered either cost-effective or potentially cost-effective (22), with 3 interventions being not cost-effective. Limitations were noted regarding appropriateness of conclusions drawn on cost-effectiveness, the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds and application of 'societal' incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to reflect value for money (VfM) of treatments. Non-specialist health workers (NSHWs) delivered most of the treatments (16) for low-cost delivery at scale, and costs should reflect the true opportunity cost of NSHWs' time to support the development of a sustainable cadre of health care providers. There is a 4-fold increase in economic evaluations of CMD psychological treatments in the last decade over the previous one. Yet, findings from this review highlight the need for better application of economic evaluation methodology to support resource allocation towards the World Health Organization recommended first-line treatments of CMDs. We suggest impact inventories to capture societal economic gains and propose a VfM assessment framework to guide researchers in evaluating cost-effectiveness.
常见精神障碍(CMDs)给中低收入国家(LMICs)带来了重大的公共卫生和经济负担。对 CMDs 的心理治疗进行经济评估的系统评价有限。本系统评价检查了 LMICs 中 CMDs 的心理治疗经济评估的方法、报告结果并评估其质量。我们搜索了一系列书目数据库(包括 PubMed、EconLit、APA-PsycINFO 和 Cochrane 图书馆)以及 African Journals Online(AJoL)和 Google Scholar 平台。我们使用预先填充的模板提取数据,并使用 Drummond & Jefferson 清单进行质量评估。我们以叙述性综述的形式呈现结果。该综述包括 26 项研究,主要来自亚洲(12 项)和非洲(9 项)。大多数是成本效益分析(12 项),有些是成本效用分析(5 项),一项成本效益分析或经济评估的组合(8 项)。大多数干预措施被认为是具有成本效益或潜在成本效益的(22 项),有 3 项干预措施不具有成本效益。在关于成本效益的结论的适当性、成本效益阈值的使用以及应用“社会”增量成本效益比来反映治疗的性价比方面,存在一些局限性。大多数治疗方法(16 项)由非专业卫生工作者(NSHWs)提供,以实现低成本大规模交付,并且成本应反映 NSHWs 时间的真实机会成本,以支持可持续医疗保健提供者队伍的发展。在过去十年中,对 CMD 心理治疗的经济评估增加了四倍,与前十年相比。然而,本综述的结果强调需要更好地应用经济评估方法,以支持将资源分配给世界卫生组织推荐的 CMDs 的一线治疗方法。我们建议使用影响清单来捕捉社会经济收益,并提出一个性价比评估框架,以指导研究人员评估成本效益。