Implementation strategies to build mental health-care capacity in Malawi: a health-economic evaluation.
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2024
Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
25
08
2023
revised:
10
12
2023
accepted:
12
12
2023
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
27
2
2024
entrez:
26
2
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Depression is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. Due to low system capacity, three in four patients with depression in sub-Saharan Africa go untreated. Despite this, little attention has been paid to the cost-effectiveness of implementation strategies to scale up evidence-based depression treatment in the region. In this study, we investigate the cost-effectiveness of two different implementation strategies to integrate the Friendship Bench approach and measurement-based care in non-communicable disease clinics in Malawi. The two implementation strategies tested in this study are part of a trial, in which ten clinics were randomly assigned (1:1) to a basic implementation package consisting of an internal coordinator acting as a champion (IC-only group) or to an enhanced package that complemented the basic package with quarterly external supervision, and audit and feedback of intervention delivery (IC + ES group). We included material costs, training costs, costs related to project-wide meetings, transportation and medication costs, time costs related to internal champion activities and depression screening or treatment, and costs of external supervision visits if applicable. Outcomes included the number of patients screened with the patient health questionnaire 2 (PHQ-2), cases of remitted depression at 3 and 12 months, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. We compared the cost-effectiveness of both packages to the status quo (ie, no intervention) using a micro-costing-informed decision-tree model. Relative to the status quo, IC + ES would be on average US$10 387 ($1349-$17 365) more expensive than IC-only but more effective in achieving remission and averting DALYs. The cost per additional remission would also be lower with IC + ES than IC-only at 3 months ($119 vs $223) and 12 months ($210 for IC + ES; IC-only dominated by the status quo at 12 months). Neither package would be cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $65 per DALY averted currently used by the Malawian Ministry of Health. However, the IC + ES package would be cost-effective in relation to the commonly used threshold of three times per-capita gross domestic product per DALY averted. Investing in supporting champions might be an appropriate use of resources. Although not currently cost-effective by Malawian willingness-to-pay standards compared with the status quo, the IC + ES package would probably be a cost-effective way to build mental health-care capacity in resource-constrained settings in which decision makers use higher willingness-to-pay thresholds. National Institute of Mental Health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Depression is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. Due to low system capacity, three in four patients with depression in sub-Saharan Africa go untreated. Despite this, little attention has been paid to the cost-effectiveness of implementation strategies to scale up evidence-based depression treatment in the region. In this study, we investigate the cost-effectiveness of two different implementation strategies to integrate the Friendship Bench approach and measurement-based care in non-communicable disease clinics in Malawi.
METHODS
METHODS
The two implementation strategies tested in this study are part of a trial, in which ten clinics were randomly assigned (1:1) to a basic implementation package consisting of an internal coordinator acting as a champion (IC-only group) or to an enhanced package that complemented the basic package with quarterly external supervision, and audit and feedback of intervention delivery (IC + ES group). We included material costs, training costs, costs related to project-wide meetings, transportation and medication costs, time costs related to internal champion activities and depression screening or treatment, and costs of external supervision visits if applicable. Outcomes included the number of patients screened with the patient health questionnaire 2 (PHQ-2), cases of remitted depression at 3 and 12 months, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. We compared the cost-effectiveness of both packages to the status quo (ie, no intervention) using a micro-costing-informed decision-tree model.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Relative to the status quo, IC + ES would be on average US$10 387 ($1349-$17 365) more expensive than IC-only but more effective in achieving remission and averting DALYs. The cost per additional remission would also be lower with IC + ES than IC-only at 3 months ($119 vs $223) and 12 months ($210 for IC + ES; IC-only dominated by the status quo at 12 months). Neither package would be cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $65 per DALY averted currently used by the Malawian Ministry of Health. However, the IC + ES package would be cost-effective in relation to the commonly used threshold of three times per-capita gross domestic product per DALY averted.
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
Investing in supporting champions might be an appropriate use of resources. Although not currently cost-effective by Malawian willingness-to-pay standards compared with the status quo, the IC + ES package would probably be a cost-effective way to build mental health-care capacity in resource-constrained settings in which decision makers use higher willingness-to-pay thresholds.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
National Institute of Mental Health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38408461
pii: S2214-109X(23)00597-1
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00597-1
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e662-e671Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests BWP and BNG received grant funding for this work from the National Institute of Mental Health (paid to their institution). BWP also received support from the National Institutes of Health to attend meetings or travel for projects, or both, unrelated to this work. MCH received grant funding from the National Institute of Health (paid to their institution), for the submitted manuscript. SBW receives grant funding from Pfizer and AstraZeneca (paid to their institution), outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.