Cited by 37Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDigital Mental Health InterventionsEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Systematic review and critique of methods for economic evaluation of digital mental health interventions

Jankovic, Dina, Bojke, Laura, Marshall, David, Saramago Goncalves, Pedro, Churchill, Rachel, Melton, Hollie, Brabyn, Sally, Gega, Lina·2021·Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

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 The searches included databases of published and unpublished research, reference lists and citations of all included studies, forward citations on all identified protocols and conference abstracts, and contacting authors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 ident…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40258-020-00607-3

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cost-effectiveness of digital mental health services remains unclear.

    “Although the cost-effectiveness of digital mental health services remains unclear, 427”

    From The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [427]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jankovic, D., Bojke, L., Marshall, D., Saramago Goncalves, P., Churchill, R., Melton, H., Brabyn, S., & Gega, L.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Bojke, Laura
  • Marshall, David
  • Churchill, Rachel
  • Melton, Hollie
  • Brabyn, Sally
  • Gega, Lina
Venue
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published
2020-08-17
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
17-27
ISSN
  • 1175-5652 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1896
OpenAlex
W3067748910
Cited by
36
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Health Economics and Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (17/93/06, 2019)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
digital mental health interventions, economic evaluation, cost-effectiveness, methodological quality, healthcare decision-making, comparator, complex interventions, value for money
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Mental Health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review