Cost-effectiveness and affordability of interventions, policies, and platforms for the prevention and treatment of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders
Abstract
Since the turn of the millennium, considerable progress has been made in developing an evidence base on which interventions are effective and feasible for improving mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Such evidence provides a critical input to the formulation of plans and priorities to address the large and growing burden of mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders. However, for successful and sustainable scale-up of effective interventions and innovative service delivery strategies, decision makers require not only evidence of an intervention’s impact on health and other outcomes, such as equity or poverty, but also evidence of its cost and cost-effectiveness. Cost data provide information relevant to the financial planning and implementation of prioritized, evidence-based strategies; cost-effectiveness analysis indicates the relative efficiency or value for money associated with interventions or innovations.The application of economic evaluation to MNS disorders has largely focused on the assessment of a specific intervention’s costs and health outcomes, relative to some comparator, which may be treatment as usual, another innovation, or no intervention. Such assessments have often been conducted alongside clinical trials, enabling health economic researchers to add resource use questions to study protocols, generate estimates of each trial participant’s health care costs, and relate these costs to primary outcome measures in the form o…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Economic modelling studies are helping to debunk the overgeneralized claim that treatment of mental disorders is not a cost-effective use of scarce health care resources.
“Already, economic modelling studies are helping to 'debunk the overgeneralized claim that treatment of mental disorders is not a cost-effective use of scarce health care resources' . 435”
From The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [435]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 54
- Authors
- Levin, C., & Chisholm, D.
- Venue
- Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition (Volume 4): Mental, Neurological, and Substance Use Disorders
- Publisher
- The World Bank
- Published
- 2016-03-10
- Pages
- 219-236
- OpenAlex
- W2471605275
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 35.16
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- cost-effectiveness analysis, mental, neurological and substance use disorders, low- and middle-income countries, mental health services, economic evaluation, disease control priorities, mental health policy, resource allocation, affordability, scaling up interventions, research capacity, health equity
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