Background: The prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective. Methods and findings: Electronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature. Conclusions: Our review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.

Background: Few trials have compared psychosocial therapies for people with bipolar affective disorder, and conventional meta-analyses provided limited comparisons between therapies.Aims: To combine evidence for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions used as adjunctive treatment of bipolar disorder in adults, using network meta-analysis (NMA).Method: Systematic review identified studies and NMA was used to pool data on relapse to mania or depression, medication adherence, and symptom scales for mania, depression and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).Results: Carer-focused interventions significantly reduced the risk of depressive or manic relapse. Psychoeducation alone and in combination with cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) significantly reduced medication non-adherence. Psychoeducation plus CBT significantly reduced manic symptoms and increased GAF. No intervention was associated with a significant reduction in depression symptom scale scores.Conclusions: Only interventions for family members affected relapse rates. Psychoeducation plus CBT reduced medication non-adherence, improved mania symptoms and GAF. Novel methods for addressing depressive symptoms are required.

Recently, the efficacy of dietary improvement as a therapeutic intervention for moderate to severe depression was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. The SMILES trial demonstrated a significant improvement in Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores favouring the dietary support group compared with a control group over 12 weeks. We used data collected within the trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this novel intervention. In this prospective economic evaluation, sixty-seven adults meeting DSM-IV criteria for a major depressive episode and reporting poor dietary quality were randomised to either seven sessions with a dietitian for dietary support or to an intensity matched social support (befriending) control condition. The primary outcome was Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as measured by the AQoL-8D, completed at baseline and 12 week follow-up (endpoint) assessment. Costs were evaluated from health sector and societal perspectives. The time required for intervention delivery was costed using hourly wage rates applied to the time in counselling sessions. Food and travel costs were also included in the societal perspective. Data on medications, medical services, workplace absenteeism and presenteesim (paid and unpaid) were collected from study participants using a resource-use questionnaire. Standard Australian unit costs for 2013/2014 were applied. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in average costs between groups divided by the difference in average QALYs. Confidence intervals were calculated using a non-parametric bootstrap procedure. Compared with the social support condition, average total health sector costs were $856 lower (95% CI -1247 to − 160) and average societal costs were $2591 lower (95% CI -3591 to − 198) for those receiving dietary support. These differences were driven by lower costs arising from fewer allied and other health professional visits and lower costs of unpaid productivity. Significant differences in mean QALYs were not found between groups. However, 68 and 69% of bootstrap iterations showed the dietary support intervention was dominant (additional QALYs at less cost) from the health sector and societal perspectives. This novel dietary support intervention was found to be likely cost-effective as an adjunctive treatment for depression from both health sector and societal perspectives. Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000251820 . Registered on 29 February 2012.

Despite increased investment in its recognition and treatment, depression remains a substantial health and economic burden worldwide. Current treatment strategies generally focus on biological and psychological pathways, largely neglecting the role of lifestyle. There is emerging evidence to suggest that diet and nutrition play an important role in the risk, and the genesis, of depression. However, there are limited data regarding the therapeutic impact of dietary changes on existing mental illness. Using a randomised controlled trial design, we aim to investigate the efficacy and cost-efficacy of a dietary program for the treatment of Major Depressive Episodes (MDE). One hundred and seventy six eligible participants suffering from current MDE are being randomised into a dietary intervention group or a social support group. Depression status is assessed using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Non Patient Edition) (SCID-I/NP). The intervention consists of 7 individual nutrition consulting sessions (of approximately 60 minutes), delivered by an Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD). Sessions commence within one week of baseline assessment. The intervention focuses on advocating a healthy diet based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the Dietary Guidelines for Adults in Greece. The control condition comprises a befriending protocol using the same visit schedule and length as the diet intervention. The study is being conducted at two locations in Victoria, Australia (a metropolitan and regional centre). Data collection occurs at baseline (pre-intervention), 3-months (post-intervention) and 6– months. The primary endpoint is MADRS scores at 3 months. A cost consequences analysis will determine the economic value of the intervention. If efficacious, this program could provide an alternative or adjunct treatment strategy for the management of this highly prevalent mental disorder; the benefits of which could extend to the management of common co-morbidities including cardiovascular disease (CVD), obesity, and type 2 diabetes. NCT01523561

Background: Stepped care has been promoted for the management of mental disorders; however, there is no empirical evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of this approach for the treatment of anxiety disorders in youth. Method: This economic evaluation was conducted within a randomised controlled trial comparing stepped care to a validated, manualised treatment in 281 young people, aged 7–17, with a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Intervention costs were determined from therapist records. Administrative data on medication and medical service use were used to determine additional health care costs during the study period. Parents also completed a resource use questionnaire to collect medications, services not captured in administrative data and parental lost productivity. Outcomes included participant-completed quality of life, Child Health Utility – nine-dimension and parent-completed Assessment of Quality of Life – eight-dimension to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years were compared between groups at 12-month follow-up. Results: Intervention delivery costs were significantly less for stepped care from the societal perspective (mean difference −$198, 95% confidence interval −$353 to −$19). Total combined costs were less for stepped care from both societal (−$1334, 95% confidence interval −$2386 to $510) and health sector (−$563, 95% confidence interval −$1353 to $643) perspectives but did not differ significantly from the manualised treatment. Youth and parental quality-adjusted life years were not significantly different between groups. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust. Conclusion: For youth with anxiety, this three-step model provided comparable outcomes and total health sector costs to a validated face-to-face programme. However, it was less costly to deliver from a societal perspective, making it an attractive option for some parents. Future economic evaluations comparing various models of stepped care to treatment as usual are recommended.