Are remote mental healthcare interventions cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations of remote mental healthcare

BackgroundRemote interventions known as telemental health care increased in use due to the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing requirements were in place. Whilst there is some evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of telemental health prior to the pandemic, there is a need for further evaluation due to the increase in remote care. AimsTo systematically review the literature to explore whether remote mental health care interventions are cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per quality adjusted life year and in relation to condition specific outcomes compared to usual care or an alternative intervention. MethodA multilayer search strategy was conducted to build on the searches of a previous systematic review, as well as including grey literature and economic models. Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit) were searched for literature relating to the cost effectiveness of telemental health. Quality appraisal was conducted for all included studies, and findings were synthesised using narrative synthesis. Results7386 studies were identified of which 59 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis of findings. 45 studies were rated as very good or excellent quality. Of the 59 included studies, 40 indicated that the telemental health intervention was cost-effective, whilst a further 16 suggested the intervention had potential to be cost-effective, but there was some uncertainty in the findings. Three studies reported that the intervention was not cost-effective. ConclusionsThis evidence will be used to inform practice in the UK as we respond to and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.