Background: Economic evaluations provide evidence on whether or not digital interventions offer value for money, based on their costs and outcomes relative to the costs and outcomes of alternatives. Objectives: (1) Evaluate and summarise published economic studies about digital interventions across different technologies, therapies, comparators and mental health conditions; (2) synthesise clinical evidence about digital interventions for an exemplar mental health condition; (3) construct an economic model for the same exemplar mental health condition using the previously synthesised clinical evidence; and (4) consult with stakeholders about how they understand and assess the value of digital interventions. Methods: We completed four work packages: (1) a systematic review and quality assessment of economic studies about digital interventions; (2) a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; (3) an economic model and value-of-information analysis on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; and (4) a series of knowledge exchange face-to-face and digital seminars with stakeholders. Results: In work package 1, we reviewed 76 economic evaluations: 11 economic models and 65 within-trial analyses. Although the results of the studies are not directly comparable because they used different methods, the overall picture suggests that digital interventions are likely to be cost-effective, compared with no intervention and non-therapeutic controls, whereas the value of digital interventions compared with face-to-face therapy or printed manuals is unclear. In work package 2, we carried out two network meta-analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials of digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder with a total of 2350 participants. The results were used to inform our economic model, but when considered on their own they were inconclusive because of the very wide confidence intervals. In work package 3, our decision-analytic model found that digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder were associated with lower net monetary benefit than medication and face-to-face therapy, but greater net monetary benefit than non-therapeutic controls and no intervention. Value for money was driven by clinical outcomes rather than by intervention costs, and a value-of-information analysis suggested that uncertainty in the treatment effect had the greatest value (£12.9B). In work package 4, stakeholders identified several areas of benefits and costs of digital interventions that are important to them, including safety, sustainability and reducing waiting times. Four factors may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing patient choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the ‘inevitability of going digital’. Limitations: There was substantial uncertainty around effect estimates of digital interventions compared with alternatives. This uncertainty was driven by the small number of studies informing most comparisons, the small samples in some of these studies and the studies’ high risk of bias. Conclusions: Digital interventions may offer good value for money as an alternative to ‘doing nothing’ or ‘doing something non-therapeutic’ (e.g. monitoring or having a general discussion), but their added value compared with medication, face-to-face therapy and printed manuals is uncertain. Clinical outcomes rather than intervention costs drive ‘value for money’. Future work: There is a need to develop digital interventions that are more effective, rather than just cheaper, than their alternatives. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105837. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The evidence base informing economic evaluation models is rarely derived from a single source. Researchers are typically expected to identify and combine available data to inform the estimation of model parameters for a particular decision problem. The absence of clear guidelines on what data can be used and how to effectively synthesize this evidence base under different scenarios inevitably leads to different approaches being used by different modelers. The aim of this article is to produce a taxonomy that can help modelers identify the most appropriate methods to use when synthesizing the available data for a given model parameter. This article developed a taxonomy based on possible scenarios faced by the analyst when dealing with the available evidence. While mainly focusing on clinical effectiveness parameters, this article also discusses strategies relevant to other key input parameters in any economic model (i.e., disease natural history, resource use/costs, and preferences). The taxonomy categorizes the evidence base for health economic modeling according to whether 1) single or multiple data sources are available, 2) individual or aggregate data are available (or both), or 3) individual or multiple decision model parameters are to be estimated from the data. References to examples of the key methodological developments for each entry in the taxonomy together with citations to where such methods have been used in practice are provided throughout. The use of the taxonomy developed in this article hopes to improve the quality of the synthesis of evidence informing decision models by bringing to the attention of health economics modelers recent methodological developments in this field.

Background: Generalized anxiety disorder is the most common mental health condition based on weekly prevalence. Digital interventions have been used as alternatives or as supplements to conventional therapies to improve access, patient choice, and clinical outcomes. Little is known about their comparative effectiveness for generalized anxiety disorder.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing digital interventions with medication, non-digital interventions, non-therapeutic controls, and no intervention.Results: We included 21 randomized controlled trials with a total of 2,350 participants from generalized anxiety disorder populations. Pooled outcomes using analysis of Covariance and rankograms based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves indicated that antidepressant medication and group therapy had a higher probability than digital interventions of being the “best” intervention. Supported digital interventions were not necessarily “better” than unsupported (pure self-help) ones.Conclusions: Due to very wide confidence intervals, network meta-analysis results were inconclusive as to whether digital interventions are better than no intervention and non-therapeutic active controls, or whether they confer an additional benefit to standard therapy. Future research needs to compare digital interventions with one-to-one therapy and with manualized non-digital self-help and to include antidepressant medication as a treatment comparator and effect modifier.

Network meta-analysis methods extend the standard pair-wise framework to allow simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions in a single statistical model. Despite published work on network meta-analysis mainly focussing on the synthesis of aggregate data, methods have been developed that allow the use of individual patient-level data specifically when outcomes are dichotomous or continuous. This paper focuses on the synthesis of individual patient-level and summary time to event data, motivated by a real data example looking at the effectiveness of high compression treatments on the healing of venous leg ulcers.