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.

People with severe mental illness suffer from a high burden of oral diseases, which can negatively impact their physical and mental well-being. Despite the high burden, they are less likely to engage in oral health care including accessing dental services. We aimed to identify both the service users’ and service providers’ perspective on the barriers and facilitators for maintaining oral health and dental service use in people with severe mental illness. Qualitative exploration was undertaken using dyadic or one-to-one in-depth interviews with service users in the UK with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder. Service providers, including mental health and dental health professionals, and informal carers (people identified as family or friend who are not paid carers) were also interviewed. Thematic analysis of the data revealed three main cross-cutting themes at the personal, inter-personal and systems level: amelioration of the problem, using a tailored approach and provision of comprehensive support. The main barriers identified were impact of mental ill-health, lack of patient involvement and tailored approach, and accessibility and availability of dental services including lack of integration of services. The main facilitators identified were service providers’ effective communication skills and further support through the involvement of carers. The findings suggest that the integration of dental and mental health services to provide tailored support for overall health and well-being, including the oral health of the patient, can better support people with severe mental illness regarding their oral health needs.

Behavioural Activation (BA)—a brief therapy based on the scheduling of enjoyable, purposeful and rewarding activities—is an effective and cost-effective treatment for depression in adults that shows promise for children and adolescents. We provide an update on a previous systematic review of evidence on BA—delivered in-person, telephone, or online—for depression and comorbid anxiety in children and adolescents. We conducted systematic literature searches in 6 databases up to February 2024. We included all study designs evaluating BA with participants up to 18 years old with diagnosable depression, as established by a validated screening tool or diagnostic manual. We used the Moncrieff Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality. We summarised the findings of all study types with a narrative synthesis and of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a meta-analysis. Overall, 24 studies (6 RCTs, 18 pre-post evaluations, n = 2,758) met our inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (n = 156) showed that BA has a small effect of 0.24 (Hedge’s adjusted g) in reducing depression symptoms compared to a waiting-list control, usual care and other therapies. Online and telephone-facilitated BA was shown to be feasible in 3 studies and effective in 1. Outcomes on comorbid anxiety were mixed. No economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. BA shows sufficient promise as an intervention for reducing depression symptoms in children and adolescents to justify the need for further RCTs, providing that five conditions are met: studies are powered to detect a minimal clinically important difference; BA materials are fit-for-purpose to produce clinically meaningful change; follow-ups are longer than 6 months; primary outcomes are child-reported; and intervention costs, resource use and adverse events are reported.

Objectives: Numerous studies and reviews have explored the value of adding therapist support to internet self-help for improving client adherence and outcomes. This study is different as it explores the value of adding internet self-help to face-to-face therapy, from the perspective of practitioners who used both. This study explores practitioners’ experiences of whether—and how—internet self-help blended with face-to-face therapy may confer an added value or become an added burden to their routine practice. Methods: Using a structured topic guide, we collected narrative data via 3 focus groups and 1 telephone interview from 11 practitioners across two sites in England. We carried out a thematic analysis within two domains, “value vs. burden”. Results: Practitioners reported that internet self-help can confer added value to face-to-face therapy by: fostering client engagement with face-to-face sessions; making therapy ubiquitous beyond sessions; and preventing therapeutic drift between sessions. Conversely, internet self-help can add burden to face-to-face therapy when it is experienced as disruptive, overwhelming and time-consuming. Conclusions: Recognizing and mitigating factors that can turn internet self-help from an added value to an added burden will help practitioners adopt and make the most out of blended therapy.

Background: 5%–10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non‐inferiority of OST compared to multi‐session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP. Methods: ASPECT was a pragmatic, multi‐center, non‐inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university‐based CYP well‐being service. CYP aged 7–16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non‐inferiority and a nested cost‐effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6‐months post‐randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal‐based outcome measure, and EQ‐5DY and CHU‐9D, collected blind at baseline and six‐months. Results: 268 CYPs were randomized to OST ( n = 134) or CBT ( n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention‐to‐treat (ITT) and per‐protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale‐adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST ‐0.123, 95% CI −0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference −0.204, 95% CI −0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non‐inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non‐inferior to CBT. No between‐group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT. Conclusions: One Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost‐saving alternative.