Search

Aim The prevention of mental disorders is a growing field and there are interventions that have been demonstrated to prevent some disorders, particularly depression, from developing. The aim of the current study is to update two existing reviews of the cost-effectiveness studies of preventive interventions for mental disorders in order to determine whether such interventions are good value-for-money. Methods A search was undertaken in Medline, PsycInfo and Econlit. The search was limited to articles published in English covering the period from 2010 to September 2013. Inclusion criteria for the review comprised comparative economic evaluations of interventions designed to prevent mental disorders. Results Ten new economic evaluations have been published since 2010, more than doubling the numbers of economic evaluations of preventive interventions for mental disorders published prior to 2010. Using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards ( CHEERS) checklist, the majority of studies were of a good standard and used cost-utility frameworks. Conclusions Indicated types of interventions for the prevention of depression and anxiety appeared to be particularly good value-for-money and most of these studies were modelled evaluations. Unfortunately, many such interventions are still not routinely provided. Future trials of preventive interventions for mental disorders need to include robust economic evaluations so that the economic impact of such interventions from the individual study participant perspective can be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Costs associated with mental health treatment for young persons at ‘ultra’ high risk (UHR) of developing a psychotic disorder have not previously been reported. This paper reports cost implications of providing psychological and pharmacological intervention for individuals at UHR for psychosis compared with minimal psychological treatment. Method: Mental health service costs associated with a randomized controlled trial of two treatments (Specific Preventive Intervention: SPI and Needs-Based Intervention: NBI) for UHR young persons were estimated and compared at three time points: treatment phase, short-term follow up and medium-term follow up. Results: Although the SPI group incurred significantly higher treatment costs than the NBI group over the treatment phase, they incurred significantly lower outpatient treatment costs over the longer term. Conclusion: This study indicates that specific interventions designed to treat young persons who are identified as being at UHR of psychosis might be associated with some cost savings compared with non-specific interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]