Effect of collaborative care between traditional and faith healers and primary health-care workers on psychosis outcomes in Nigeria and Ghana (COSIMPO): a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Traditional and faith healers (TFH) provide care to a large number of people with psychosis in many sub-Saharan African countries but they practise outside the formal mental health system. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative shared care model for psychosis delivered by TFH and primary health-care providers (PHCW). METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial in Kumasi, Ghana and Ibadan, Nigeria, we randomly allocated clusters (a primary care clinic and neighbouring TFH facilities) 1:1, stratified by size and country, to an intervention group or enhanced care as usual. The intervention included a manualised collaborative shared care delivered by trained TFH and PHCW. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) newly admitted to TFH facilities with active psychotic symptoms (positive and negative syndrome scale [PANSS] score ≥60). The primary outcome, by masked assessments at 6 months, was the difference in psychotic symptom improvement as measured with the PANSS in patients in follow-up at 3 and 6 months. Patients exposure to harmful treatment practices, such as shackling, were also assessed at 3 and 6 months. Care costs were assessed at baseline, 3-month and 6-month follow-up, and for the entire 6 months of follow-up. This trial was registered with the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial registry, NCT02895269. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2016, and May 3, 2017, 51 clusters were randomly allocated (26 intervention, 25 control) with 307 patients enrolled (166 [54%] in the intervention group and 141 [46%] in the control group). 190 (62%) of participants were men. Baseline mean PANSS score was 107·3 (SD 17·5) for the intervention group and 108·9 (18·3) for the control group. 286 (93%) completed the 6-month follow-up at which the mean total PANSS score for intervention group was 53·4 (19·9) compared with 67·6 (23·3) for the control group (adjusted mean difference -15·01 (95% CI -21·17 to -8·84; 0·0001). Harmful practices decreased from 94 (57%) of 166 patients at baseline to 13 (9%) of 152 at 6 months in the intervention group (-0·48 [-0·60 to -0·37] p<0·001) and from 59 (42%) of 141 patients to 13 (10%) of 134 in the control group (-0·33 [-0·45 to -0·21] p<0·001), with no significant difference between the two groups. Greater reductions in overall care costs were seen in the intervention group than in the control group. At the 6 month assessment, greater reductions in total health service and time costs were seen in the intervention group; however, cumulative costs over this period were higher (US $627 per patient vs $526 in the control group). Five patients in the intervention group had mild extrapyramidal side effects. INTERPRETATION: A collaborative shared care delivered by TFH and conventional health-care providers for people with psychosis was effective and cost-effective. The model of care offers the prospect of scaling up improved care to this vulnerable population in settings with low resources. FUNDING: US National Institute of Mental Health.

Cost-effectiveness of WHO Problem Management Plus for adults with mood and anxiety disorders in a post-conflict area of Pakistan: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: With the development of evidence-based interventions for treatment of priority mental health conditions in humanitarian settings, it is important to establish the cost-effectiveness of such interventions to enable their scale-up. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Problem Management Plus (PM+) intervention compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) for common mental disorders in primary healthcare in Peshawar, Pakistan. Trial registration ACTRN12614001235695 (anzctr.org.au). METHOD: We randomly allocated 346 participants to either PM+ (n = 172) or EUC (n = 174). Effectiveness was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 3 months post-intervention. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as incremental costs (measured in Pakistani rupees, PKR) per unit change in anxiety, depression and functioning scores. RESULTS: The total cost of delivering PM+ per participant was estimated at PKR 16 967 (US$163.14) using an international trainer and supervisor, and PKR 3645 (US$35.04) employing a local trainer. The mean cost per unit score improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the HADS was PKR 2957 (95% CI 2262-4029) (US$28) with an international trainer/supervisor and PKR 588 (95% CI 434-820) (US$6) with a local trainer/supervisor. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to successfully treat a case of depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) using an international supervisor was PKR 53 770 (95% CI 39 394-77 399) (US$517), compared with PKR 10 705 (95% CI 7731-15 627) (US$102.93) using a local supervisor. CONCLUSIONS: The PM+ intervention was more effective but also more costly than EUC in reducing symptoms of anxiety, depression and improving functioning in adults impaired by psychological distress in a post-conflict setting of Pakistan.

Universal health coverage and intersectoral action for health: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition.

The World Bank is publishing nine volumes of Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition (DCP3) between 2015 and 2018. Volume 9, Improving Health and Reducing Poverty, summarises the main messages from all the volumes and contains cross-cutting analyses. This Review draws on all nine volumes to convey conclusions. The analysis in DCP3 is built around 21 essential packages that were developed in the nine volumes. Each essential package addresses the concerns of a major professional community (eg, child health or surgery) and contains a mix of intersectoral policies and health-sector interventions. 71 intersectoral prevention policies were identified in total, 29 of which are priorities for early introduction. Interventions within the health sector were grouped onto five platforms (population based, community level, health centre, first-level hospital, and referral hospital). DCP3 defines a model concept of essential universal health coverage (EUHC) with 218 interventions that provides a starting point for country-specific analysis of priorities. Assuming steady-state implementation by 2030, EUHC in lower-middle-income countries would reduce premature deaths by an estimated 4·2 million per year. Estimated total costs prove substantial: about 9·1% of (current) gross national income (GNI) in low-income countries and 5·2% of GNI in lower-middle-income countries. Financing provision of continuing intervention against chronic conditions accounts for about half of estimated incremental costs. For lower-middle-income countries, the mortality reduction from implementing the EUHC can only reach about half the mortality reduction in non-communicable diseases called for by the Sustainable Development Goals. Full achievement will require increased investment or sustained intersectoral action, and actions by finance ministries to tax smoking and polluting emissions and to reduce or eliminate (often large) subsidies on fossil fuels appear of central importance. DCP3 is intended to be a model starting point for analyses at the country level, but country-specific cost structures, epidemiological needs, and national priorities will generally lead to definitions of EUHC that differ from country to country and from the model in this Review. DCP3 is particularly relevant as achievement of EUHC relies increasingly on greater domestic finance, with global developmental assistance in health focusing more on global public goods. In addition to assessing effects on mortality, DCP3 looked at outcomes of EUHC not encompassed by the disability-adjusted life-year metric and related cost-effectiveness analyses. The other objectives included financial protection (potentially better provided upstream by keeping people out of the hospital rather than downstream by paying their hospital bills for them), stillbirths averted, palliative care, contraception, and child physical and intellectual growth. The first 1000 days after conception are highly important for child development, but the next 7000 days are likewise important and often neglected.

High- versus low-intensity interventions for perinatal depression delivered by non-specialist primary maternal care providers in Nigeria: cluster randomised controlled trial (the EXPONATE trial).

BACKGROUND: Contextually appropriate interventions delivered by primary maternal care providers (PMCPs) might be effective in reducing the treatment gap for perinatal depression. AIM: To compare high-intensity treatment (HIT) with low-intensity treatment (LIT) for perinatal depression. METHOD: Cluster randomised clinical trial, conducted in Ibadan, Nigeria between 18 June 2013 and 11 December 2015 in 29 maternal care clinics allocated by computed-generated random sequence (15 HIT; 14 LIT). Interventions were delivered individually to antenatal women with DSM-IV (1994) major depression by trained PMCPs. LIT consisted of the basic psychosocial treatment specifications in the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Programme - Intervention Guide. HIT comprised LIT plus eight weekly problem-solving therapy sessions with possible additional sessions determined by scores on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). The primary outcome was remission of depression at 6 months postpartum (EPDS < 6). RESULTS: There were 686 participants; 452 and 234 in HIT and LIT arms, respectively, with both groups similar at baseline. Follow-up assessments, completed on 85%, showed remission rates of 70% with HIT and 66% with LIT: risk difference 4% (95% CI -4.1%, 12.0%), adjusted odds ratio 1.12 (95% CI 0.73, 1.72). HIT was more effective for severe depression (odds ratio 2.29; 95% CI 1.01, 5.20; P = 0.047) and resulted in a higher rate of exclusive breastfeeding. Infant outcomes, cost-effectiveness and adverse events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Except among severely depressed perinatal women, we found no strong evidence to recommend high-intensity in preference to low-intensity psychological intervention in routine primary maternal care. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: None.

Mental health problems and socioeconomic disadvantage: a controlled household study in rural Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of high quality population-based studies from low- and middle-income countries examining the relative economic status of households with and without a member with a mental health problem. The aim of the study was to explore the socio-economic status of households with a person with severe mental disorder (SMD; psychosis or bipolar disorder) or depression compared to households without an affected person. METHODS: A population-based, comparative, cross-sectional household survey was conducted in Sodo district, south Ethiopia, between January and November 2015. Two samples were recruited, each with its own comparison group. Sample (1): households of 290 community-ascertained persons with a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of SMD and a comparison group of 289 households without a person with SMD. Sample (2): households of 128 people who attended the primary health care centre and who were identified by primary care staff as having a probable diagnosis of depressive disorder; and comparison households of 129 patients who attended for other reasons and who did not receive a diagnosis of depression. Household socioeconomic status (household income, consumption and asset-based wealth) was assessed using a contextualized version of theWorld Health Organization (WHO) Study on global Ageing and adult health (SAGE) questionnaire. Each disorder group (SMD and depression) was further divided into higher and lower disability groups on the basis of median score on the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule. RESULTS: Households of a person with SMD who had higher disability were more likely to have a poorer living standard (no toilet facility; p < 0.001). Having a reliable source of regular income was significantly lower in households of a person with SMD (p = 0.008) or depression (p = 0.046) with higher disability than the comparison group. Households of persons with SMD with higher disability earned less (p = 0.005) and owned significantly fewer assets (p < 0.001) than households without SMD. Households including persons with depression who had higher disability had lower income (p = 0.042) and reduced consumption (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Households with a member who had either SMD or depression were socioeconomically disadvantaged compared to the general population. Moreover, higher disability was associated with worse socio-economic disadvantage. Prospective studies are needed to determine the direction of association. This study indicates a need to consider households of people with SMD or depression as a vulnerable group requiring economic support alongside access to evidence-based mental healthcare.

Catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment in households of persons with depression: a cross-sectional, comparative study in rural Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: The extent of catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment associated with depression in low-and middle-income countries is not known. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence and intensity of catastrophic out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditure, level of impoverishment and coping strategies used by households of persons with and without depression in a rural Ethiopian district. METHODS: A comparative cross-sectional survey was conducted, including 128 households of persons with depression and 129 households without. Depression screening was conducted using the Patient Health Questionnaire, nine item version (PHQ-9). People in the depression group were classified into high and low disability groups based on the median value on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) polytomous summary score. Health expenditure greater than thresholds of 10 and 25% of total household consumption was used for the primary analyses. The poverty headcount, poverty gap and normalized poverty gap were estimated using retrospective recall of total household expenditure pre- and post-OOP payments for health care. Linear probability model using binreg command in STATA with rr option was used to estimate risk ratio for the occurrence of outcomes among households with and without depression based on level of disability. RESULTS: Catastrophic OOP payments at any threshold level for households with depression and high disability were higher than control households. At the 10% threshold level, 24.0% of households of persons with depression and high disability faced catastrophic payments compared with 15.3% for depression and low disability and 12.1% for control households (p = 0.041). Depression and high disability level was an independent predictor of catastrophic OOP payments: RR 2.1; 95% CI:1.1, 4.6. An estimated 5.8% of households of persons with depression and high disability were pushed into poverty because of paying for health care compared with 3.5% for households of persons with depression and low disability and 2.3% for control households (p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Households of people with depression and high disability were more likely to face catastrophic expenditures and impoverishment from OOP payments. Financial protection interventions through prepayment schemes, exemptions and fee waiver strategies need to target households of persons with depression.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent road traffic injuries in eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia: new results from WHO-CHOICE.

BACKGROUND: Road safety has been receiving increased attention through the United Nations Decade of Action on Road Safety, and is also now specifically addressed in the sustainable development goals 3.6 and 11.2. In an effort to enhance the response to Road Traffic Injuries (RTIs), this paper aims to examine the cost effectiveness of proven preventive interventions and forms part of an update of the WHO-CHOICE programme. METHODS: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) approach was used for our analysis. GCEA applies a null reference case, in which the effects of currently implemented interventions are subtracted from current rates of burden, in order to identify the most efficient package of interventions. A population model was used to arrive at estimates of intervention effectiveness. All heath system costs required to deliver the intervention, regardless of payer, were included. Interventions are considered to be implemented for 100 years. The analysis was undertaken for eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. RESULTS: In Southeast Asia, among individual interventions, drink driving legislation and its enforcement via random breath testing of drivers at roadside checkpoints, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. Moreover, the combination of "speed limits + random breath testing + motorcycle helmet use", at 90% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective package. In eastern sub-Saharan Africa, enforcement of speed limits via mobile/handheld cameras, at 80% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective single intervention. The combination of "seatbelt use + motorcycle helmet use + speed limits + random breath testing" at 90% coverage was found to be the most cost-effective intervention package. CONCLUSION: This study presents updated estimates on cost-effectiveness of practical, evidence-based strategies that countries can use to address the burden of RTIs. The combination of individual interventions that enforces simultaneously multiple road safety measures are proving to be the most cost-effective scenarios. It is important to note, however, that, in addition to enacting and enforcing legislation on the risk factors highlighted as part of this paper, countries need to have a coordinated, multi-faceted strategy to improve road safety.

Development of quality indicators for mental healthcare in the Danube region.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators are quality assurance instruments for the evaluation of mental healthcare systems. Quality indicators can be used to measure the effectiveness of mental healthcare structure and process reforms. This project aims to develop quality indicators for mental healthcare systems in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Serbia to provide monitoring instruments for the transformation of mental healthcare systems in these countries. METHODS: Quality indicators for mental healthcare systems were developed in a systematic, multidisciplinary approach. A systematic literature study was conducted to identify quality indicators that are used internationally in mental healthcare. Retrieved quality indicators were systematically selected by means of defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality indicators were subsequently rated in a two-stage Delphi study for relevance, validity and feasibility (data availability and data collection effort). The Delphi panel included 22 individuals in the first round, and 18 individuals in the second and final round. RESULTS: Overall, mental healthcare quality indicators were rated higher in relevance than in validity (Mean relevance=7.6, SD=0.8; Mean validity=7.1, SD=0.7). There was no statistically significant difference in scores between the four countries for relevance (X2 (3)=3.581, p=0.310) and validity (X2 (3)=1.145, p=0.766). For data availability, the appraisal of "YES" (data are available) ranged from 6% for "assisted housing" to 94% for "total beds for mental healthcare per 100,000 population" and "availability of mental health service facilities". CONCLUSION: Quality indicators were developed in a systematic and multidisciplinary development process. There was a broad consensus among mental healthcare experts from the participating countries in terms of relevance and validity of the proposed quality indicators. In a next step, the feasibility of these twenty-two indicators will be evaluated in a pilot study in the participating countries.

Addressing the burden of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition.

The burden of mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders increased by 41% between 1990 and 2010 and now accounts for one in every 10 lost years of health globally. This sobering statistic does not take into account the substantial excess mortality associated with these disorders or the social and economic consequences of MNS disorders on affected persons, their caregivers, and society. A wide variety of effective interventions, including drugs, psychological treatments, and social interventions, can prevent and treat MNS disorders. At the population-level platform of service delivery, best practices include legislative measures to restrict access to means of self-harm or suicide and to reduce the availability of and demand for alcohol. At the community-level platform, best practices include life-skills training in schools to build social and emotional competencies. At the health-care-level platform, we identify three delivery channels. Two of these delivery channels are especially relevant from a public health perspective: self-management (eg, web-based psychological therapy for depression and anxiety disorders) and primary care and community outreach (eg, non-specialist health worker delivering psychological and pharmacological management of selected disorders). The third delivery channel, hospital care, which includes specialist services for MNS disorders and first-level hospitals providing other types of services (such as general medicine, HIV, or paediatric care), play an important part for a smaller proportion of cases with severe, refractory, or emergency presentations and for the integration of mental health care in other health-care channels, respectively. The costs of providing a significantly scaled up package of specified cost-effective interventions for prioritised MNS disorders in low-income and lower-middle-income countries is estimated at US$3-4 per head of population per year. Since a substantial proportion of MNS disorders run a chronic and disabling course and adversely affect household welfare, intervention costs should largely be met by government through increased resource allocation and financial protection measures (rather than leaving households to pay out-of-pocket). Moreover, a policy of moving towards universal public finance can also be expected to lead to a far more equitable allocation of public health resources across income groups. Despite this evidence, less than 1% of development assistance for health and government spending on health in low-income and middle-income countries is allocated to the care of people with these disorders. Achieving the health gains associated with prioritised interventions will require not just financial resources, but committed and sustained efforts to address a range of other barriers (such as paucity of human resources, weak governance, and stigma). Ultimately, the goal is to massively increase opportunities for people with MNS disorders to access services without the prospect of discrimination or impoverishment and with the hope of attaining optimal health and social outcomes.

Estimating the cost of implementing district mental healthcare plans in five low- and middle-income countries: the PRIME study.

BACKGROUND: An essential element of mental health service scale up relates to an assessment of resource requirements and cost implications. AIMS: To assess the expected resource needs of scaling up services in five districts in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. METHOD: The resource quantities associated with each site's specified care package were identified and subsequently costed, both at current and target levels of coverage. RESULTS: The cost of the care package at target coverage ranged from US$0.21 to 0.56 per head of population in four of the districts (in the higher-income context of South Africa, it was US$1.86). In all districts, the additional amount needed each year to reach target coverage goals after 10 years was below $0.10 per head of population. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of resource needs and costs for district-level mental health services provides relevant information concerning the financial feasibility of locally developed plans for successful scale up.

Evaluation of district mental healthcare plans: the PRIME consortium methodology.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the implementation and impact of real-world mental health programmes delivered at scale in low-resource settings. AIMS: To describe the cross-country research methods used to evaluate district-level mental healthcare plans (MHCPs) in Ethiopia, India, Nepal, South Africa and Uganda. METHOD: Multidisciplinary methods conducted at community, health facility and district levels, embedded within a theory of change. RESULTS: The following designs are employed to evaluate the MHCPs: (a) repeat community-based cross-sectional surveys to measure change in population-level contact coverage; (b) repeat facility-based surveys to assess change in detection of disorders; (c) disorder-specific cohorts to assess the effect on patient outcomes; and (d) multilevel case studies to evaluate the process of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: To evaluate whether and how a health-system-level intervention is effective, multidisciplinary research methods are required at different population levels. Although challenging, such methods may be replicated across diverse settings.

Health and economic benefits of public financing of epilepsy treatment in India: An agent-based simulation model.

OBJECTIVE: An estimated 6-10 million people in India live with active epilepsy, and less than half are treated. We analyze the health and economic benefits of three scenarios of publicly financed national epilepsy programs that provide: (1) first-line antiepilepsy drugs (AEDs), (2) first- and second-line AEDs, and (3) first- and second-line AEDs and surgery. METHODS: We model the prevalence and distribution of epilepsy in India using IndiaSim, an agent-based, simulation model of the Indian population. Agents in the model are disease-free or in one of three disease states: untreated with seizures, treated with seizures, and treated without seizures. Outcome measures include the proportion of the population that has epilepsy and is untreated, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, and cost per DALY averted. Economic benefit measures estimated include out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure averted and money-metric value of insurance. RESULTS: All three scenarios represent a cost-effective use of resources and would avert 800,000-1 million DALYs per year in India relative to the current scenario. However, especially in poor regions and populations, scenario 1 (which publicly finances only first-line therapy) does not decrease the OOP expenditure or provide financial risk protection if we include care-seeking costs. The OOP expenditure averted increases from scenarios 1 through 3, and the money-metric value of insurance follows a similar trend between scenarios and typically decreases with wealth. In the first 10 years of scenarios 2 and 3, households avert on average over US$80 million per year in medical expenditure. SIGNIFICANCE: Expanding and publicly financing epilepsy treatment in India averts substantial disease burden. A universal public finance policy that covers only first-line AEDs may not provide significant financial risk protection. Covering costs for both first- and second-line therapy and other medical costs alleviates the financial burden from epilepsy and is cost-effective across wealth quintiles and in all Indian states.

An extended cost-effectiveness analysis of schizophrenia treatment in India under universal public finance.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia remains a priority condition in mental health policy and service development because of its early onset, severity and consequences for affected individuals and households. AIMS AND METHODS: This paper reports on an 'extended' cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) for schizophrenia treatment in India, which seeks to evaluate through a modeling approach not only the costs and health effects of intervention but also the consequences of a policy of universal public finance (UPF) on health and financial outcomes across income quintiles. RESULTS: Using plausible values for input parameters, we conclude that health gains from UPF are concentrated among the poorest, whereas the non-health gains in the form of out-of-pocket private expenditures averted due to UPF are concentrated among the richest income quintiles. Value of insurance is the highest for the poorest quintile and declines with income. CONCLUSIONS: Universal public finance can play a crucial role in ameliorating the adverse economic and social consequences of schizophrenia and its treatment in resource-constrained settings where health insurance coverage is generally poor. This paper shows the potential distributional and financial risk protection effects of treating schizophrenia.

Strengthening mental health systems in low- and middle-income countries: the Emerald programme.

There is a large treatment gap for mental health care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with the majority of people with mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders receiving no or inadequate care. Health system factors are known to play a crucial role in determining the coverage and effectiveness of health service interventions, but the study of mental health systems in LMICs has been neglected. The 'Emerging mental health systems in LMICs' (Emerald) programme aims to improve outcomes of people with MNS disorders in six LMICs (Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda) by generating evidence and capacity to enhance health system performance in delivering mental health care. A mixed-methods approach is being applied to generate evidence on: adequate, fair, and sustainable resourcing for mental health (health system inputs); integrated provision of mental health services (health system processes); and improved coverage and goal attainment in mental health (health system outputs). Emerald has a strong focus on capacity-building of researchers, policymakers, and planners, and on increasing service user and caregiver involvement to support mental health systems strengthening. Emerald also addresses stigma and discrimination as one of the key barriers for access to and successful delivery of mental health services.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions for migraine in four low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the cost and effects of interventions for reducing the global burden of migraine remains scarce. Our objective was to estimate the population-level cost-effectiveness of evidence-based migraine interventions and their contributions towards reducing current burden in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Using a standard WHO approach to cost-effectiveness analysis (CHOICE), we modelled core set intervention strategies for migraine, taking account of coverage and efficacy as well as non-adherence. The setting was primary health care including pharmacies. We modelled 26 intervention strategies implemented during 10 years. These included first-line acute and prophylactic drugs, and the expected consequences of adding consumer-education and provider-training. Total population-level costs and effectiveness (healthy life years [HLY] gained) were combined to form average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We executed runs of the model for the general populations of China, India, Russia and Zambia. RESULTS: Of the strategies considered, acute treatment of attacks with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was by far the most cost-effective and generated a HLY for less than US$ 100. Adding educational actions increased annual costs by 1-2 US cents per capita of the population. Cost-effectiveness ratios then became slightly less favourable but still less than US$ 100 per HLY gained for ASA. An incremental cost of > US$ 10,000 would have to be paid per extra HLY by adding a triptan in a stepped-care treatment paradigm. For prophylaxis, amitriptyline was more cost-effective than propranolol or topiramate. CONCLUSIONS: Self-management with simple analgesics was by far the most cost-effective strategy for migraine treatment in low- and middle-income countries and represents a highly efficient use of health resources. Consumer education and provider training are expected to accelerate progress towards desired levels of coverage and adherence, cost relatively little to implement, and can therefore be considered also economically attractive. Evidence-based interventions for migraine should have as much a claim on scarce health resources as those for other chronic, non-communicable conditions that impose a significant burden on societies.

Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis.

This Guidance for Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health), initiated by the World Health Organization, offers a comprehensive map of equity criteria that are relevant to health care priority setting and should be considered in addition to cost-effectiveness analysis. The guidance, in the form of a checklist, is especially targeted at decision makers who set priorities at national and sub-national levels, and those who interpret findings from cost-effectiveness analysis. It is also targeted at researchers conducting cost-effectiveness analysis to improve reporting of their results in the light of these other criteria. THE GUIDANCE WAS DEVELOP THROUGH A SERIES OF EXPERT CONSULTATION MEETINGS AND INVOLVED THREE STEPS: i) methods and normative concepts were identified through a systematic review; ii) the review findings were critically assessed in the expert consultation meetings which resulted in a draft checklist of normative criteria; iii) the checklist was validated though an extensive hearing process with input from a range of relevant stakeholders. The GPS-Health incorporates criteria related to the disease an intervention targets (severity of disease, capacity to benefit, and past health loss); characteristics of social groups an intervention targets (socioeconomic status, area of living, gender; race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation); and non-health consequences of an intervention (financial protection, economic productivity, and care for others).

Cross-country analysis of national mental health investment case studies in sub-Saharan Africa and Central, South and South-East Asia.

Introduction: Despite the increasing interest in and political commitment to mental health service development in many regions of the world, there remains a very low level of financial commitment and corresponding investment. Assessment of the projected costs and benefits of scaling up the delivery of effective mental health interventions can help to promote, inform and guide greater investment in public mental health. Methods: A series of national mental health investment case studies were carried out (in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nepal, Philippines, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe), using standardized guidance developed by WHO and UNDP and implemented by a multi-disciplinary team. Intervention costs and the monetized value of improved health and production were computed in national currency units and, for comparison, US dollars. Benefit-cost ratios were derived. Findings: Across seven countries, the economic burden of mental health conditions was estimated at between 0.5%-1.0% of Gross Domestic Product. Delivery of an evidence-based package of mental health interventions was estimated to cost US$ 0.40-2.40 per capita per year, depending on the country and its scale-up period. For most conditions and country contexts there was a return of >1 for each dollar or unit of local currency invested (range: 0.0-10.6 to 1) when productivity gains alone are included, and >2 (range: 0.4-30.3 to 1) when the intrinsic economic value of health is also considered. There was considerable variation in benefit-cost ratios between intervention areas, with population-based preventive measures and treatment of common mental, neurological and conditions showing the most attractive returns when all assessed benefits are taken into account. Discussion and Conclusion: Performing a mental health investment case can provide national-level decision makers with new and contextualized information on the outlays and returns that can be expected from renewed local efforts to enhance access to quality mental health services. Economic evidence from seven low- and middle-income countries indicates that the economic burden of mental health conditions is high, the investment costs are low and the potential returns are substantial.