Back

An economic evaluation of a specialist mental health service for healthcare workers in the East of England

Puri-Sudhir, K.; Cameron, R.; Wagner, A. P.; Karadaki, T.; Said, S.; Walsh, C.; Jones, P. B.; Kaser, M.

2025-12-20 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2025.12.19.25342285 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundHealthcare workers experience disproportionately high rates of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress compared with the general population. Within the NHS, work-related stress and mental health-related sickness absence has increased over the past decade, a trend intensified by COVID-19. Mental health support offers are patchy across the UK, and the evidence base around interventions is scarce. The Staff Mental Health Service (SMHS) provides rapid, confidential support for NHS staff across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. In this study, we report an economic evaluation of this dedicated service. AimsTo assess costs and patient outcomes associated with SMHS treatment, compared with local NHS Talking Therapies (TT) support. MethodA model-based cost-consequence analysis comparing two treatment pathways: SMHS or TT, versus TT only. Routinely collected service data and survey responses informed a decision-tree model estimating costs (2022/23 {pound}GBP), clinical outcomes (PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Additional analyses examined service waiting times and productivity losses. ResultsCosts per patient were slightly higher for SMHS or TT ({pound}614 versus {pound}553), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of {pound}7,126/QALY. Treatment at either SMHS or TT yielded greater improvements in mental health outcomes than TT alone, with mean score reductions of 4.2 versus 2.8 (PHQ-9), and 4.6 versus 2.7 (GAD-7). Median waiting times were substantially shorter at SMHS versus TT from referral to assessment (14 versus 17 days), referral to treatment (22 versus 51 days), and assessment to first treatment (7 versus 30 days; all p<0.001). Productivity losses during waiting periods were lower for SMHS, with an estimated value of {pound}2,018 per patient. ConclusionsThe SMHS offers a clinically effective and cost-effective model of support for NHS staff, delivering greater improvements in mental health symptoms, substantially shorter waiting times, and reduced productivity losses at only modest additional cost compared with TT. These findings provide early evidence that specialist services for healthcare workers represent good value for money and support continued investment in specialist staff mental health provision within the NHS.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.0%
2
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
16.9%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
9.7%
4
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.2%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
8
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.1%
9
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.0%
10
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.3%
11
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.6%
14
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
15
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
16
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
18
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
23
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%