Cost-Effectiveness of Perinatal Depression Screening: A Scoping Review.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Xinyue Xie, Sihan Lin, Yi Xia, Di Liang
{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness of Perinatal Depression Screening: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Xinyue Xie, Sihan Lin, Yi Xia, Di Liang","doi":"10.1007/s40258-024-00922-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Perinatal depression (PND) has emerged as a significant public health concern. There is no consensus among countries or organizations on whether to screen for PND. Despite the growing body of evidence regarding the economic value of PND screening, its cost-effectiveness remains inadequately understood due to the heterogeneity of existing studies. This study aims to synthesize the available global evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PND screening compared to routine or usual care to provide a clearer understanding of its economic value.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A detailed search strategy was predetermined to identify peer-reviewed publications that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PND screening. We designed a scoping literature review protocol and searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science, for studies published from inception to 10 December 2023. We included studies that conducted full economic evaluations comparing PND screening with usual care or other comparators and excluded studies that were not in English or lacked full texts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the studies. Then, the data regarding costs and effectiveness were extracted and summarized narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of ten eligible studies were included, all of which were evaluated as being of high reporting quality. Nine of these studies compared the economic value of PND screening with usual care without screening, with eight finding that PND screening was generally more cost-effective. The remaining study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two psychosocial assessment models and indicated that both effectively identified women \"at risk\". Across studies, PND screening ranged from being dominant (cheaper and more effective than usual care without screening) to costing USD 17,644 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Most included studies used decision trees or Markov models to test if PND screening was cost-effective. Although current economic evaluation studies have mostly suggested PND screening could be more cost-effective than usual care without screening, there is high heterogeneity in terms of participants, screening strategies, screening settings, and perspectives across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite varied settings and designs, most studies consistently indicate PND screening as cost-effective. Further evidence is also required from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), non-Western countries, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to draw a more robust conclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00922-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Perinatal depression (PND) has emerged as a significant public health concern. There is no consensus among countries or organizations on whether to screen for PND. Despite the growing body of evidence regarding the economic value of PND screening, its cost-effectiveness remains inadequately understood due to the heterogeneity of existing studies. This study aims to synthesize the available global evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PND screening compared to routine or usual care to provide a clearer understanding of its economic value.

Methods: A detailed search strategy was predetermined to identify peer-reviewed publications that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PND screening. We designed a scoping literature review protocol and searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science, for studies published from inception to 10 December 2023. We included studies that conducted full economic evaluations comparing PND screening with usual care or other comparators and excluded studies that were not in English or lacked full texts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the studies. Then, the data regarding costs and effectiveness were extracted and summarized narratively.

Results: A total of ten eligible studies were included, all of which were evaluated as being of high reporting quality. Nine of these studies compared the economic value of PND screening with usual care without screening, with eight finding that PND screening was generally more cost-effective. The remaining study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two psychosocial assessment models and indicated that both effectively identified women "at risk". Across studies, PND screening ranged from being dominant (cheaper and more effective than usual care without screening) to costing USD 17,644 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Most included studies used decision trees or Markov models to test if PND screening was cost-effective. Although current economic evaluation studies have mostly suggested PND screening could be more cost-effective than usual care without screening, there is high heterogeneity in terms of participants, screening strategies, screening settings, and perspectives across studies.

Conclusions: Despite varied settings and designs, most studies consistently indicate PND screening as cost-effective. Further evidence is also required from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), non-Western countries, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to draw a more robust conclusion.

围产期抑郁症筛查的成本效益:范围审查。
目的:围产期抑郁症(PND)已成为一个重要的公共卫生问题。对于是否进行 PND 筛查,各国或各组织尚未达成共识。尽管有关 PND 筛查的经济价值的证据越来越多,但由于现有研究的异质性,人们对其成本效益的认识仍然不足。本研究旨在综合有关 PND 筛查与常规或常规护理相比的成本效益的现有全球证据,以便更清楚地了解其经济价值:我们预先确定了详细的检索策略,以确定评估 PND 筛查成本效益的同行评审出版物。我们设计了一个范围界定文献综述协议,并检索了包括 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Web of Science 在内的电子数据库中从开始到 2023 年 12 月 10 日发表的研究。我们纳入了对 PND 筛查与常规护理或其他比较者进行全面经济评价的研究,并排除了非英语或缺乏全文的研究。我们使用《卫生经济评估报告标准》(CHEERS)综合清单来评估研究的报告质量。然后,提取有关成本和有效性的数据,并进行叙述性总结:结果:共纳入了 10 项符合条件的研究,所有研究的报告质量都很高。其中九项研究比较了 PND 筛查与不进行筛查的常规护理的经济价值,八项研究发现 PND 筛查通常更具成本效益。其余一项研究评估了两种社会心理评估模式的成本效益,结果表明这两种模式都能有效识别 "高危 "妇女。在所有研究中,PND 筛查从占优势(比不进行筛查的常规护理更便宜、更有效)到每获得一个质量调整生命年 (QALY) 的成本为 17,644 美元不等。大多数纳入的研究使用决策树或马尔可夫模型来检验 PND 筛查是否具有成本效益。尽管目前的经济评估研究大多认为 PND 筛查比不进行筛查的常规护理更具成本效益,但各研究在参与者、筛查策略、筛查环境和观点方面存在高度异质性:结论:尽管筛查环境和设计各不相同,但大多数研究一致表明 PND 筛查具有成本效益。要得出更可靠的结论,还需要中低收入国家(LMIC)、非西方国家和随机对照试验(RCT)提供更多证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信