Is behavioural activation an effective treatment for depression in children and adolescents? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Behavioural Activation (BA)-a brief therapy based on the scheduling of enjoyable, purposeful and rewarding activities-is an effective and cost-effective treatment for depression in adults that shows promise for children and adolescents. We provide an update on a previous systematic review of evidence on BA-delivered in-person, telephone, or online-for depression and comorbid anxiety in children and adolescents. We conducted systematic literature searches in 6 databases up to February 2024. We included all study designs evaluating BA with participants up to 18 years old with diagnosable depression, as established by a validated screening tool or diagnostic manual. We used the Moncrieff Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality. We summarised the findings of all study types with a narrative synthesis and of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a meta-analysis. Overall, 24 studies (6 RCTs, 18 pre-post evaluations, n = 2,758) met our inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (n = 156) showed that BA has a small effect of 0.24 (Hedge's adjusted g) in reducing depression symptoms compared to a waiting-list control, usual care and other therapies. Online and telephone-facilitated BA was shown to be feasible in 3 studies and effective in 1. Outcomes on comorbid anxiety were mixed. No economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. BA shows sufficient promise as an intervention for reducing depression symptoms in children and adolescents to justify the need for further RCTs, providing that five conditions are met: studies are powered to detect a minimal clinically important difference; BA materials are fit-for-purpose to produce clinically meaningful change; follow-ups are longer than 6 months; primary outcomes are child-reported; and intervention costs, resource use and adverse events are reported.

Cross-culturally adapted psychological interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety among young people: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems among young people are a major global public health challenge. Psychological interventions may improve mental health, yet most are developed in western cultures, and it is unclear whether they are applicable to other geographical settings and can be delivered successfully to diverse populations. We identified empirical studies focusing upon cross-culturally adapted psychological interventions and examined the cultural adaptation process used and the effectiveness of the interventions in the treatment of depression and/or anxiety disorders among young people (defined here as children and adolescents aged between 8-18 years). METHOD: We conducted a scoping review aligning to the guidelines reported in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Statement. Stakeholder engagement enabled us to discuss the findings of the review and obtain feedback. RESULTS: We identified 17 studies of cross-culturally adapted psychological interventions that considered the appropriate language, metaphors, culturally appropriate terms, and cultural values of young people. Most studies (n = 11) adopted a randomised control trial (RCT) methodology. Six studies used the ecological validity and cultural sensitivity framework. Planned adaptation, cultural adaptation of content, and surface and deep structure level adaptations were used in other studies. Apart from one pilot study, all studies reported that culturally adapted interventions resulted in improvements in depression and/or anxiety symptoms in young people. The results suggest the potential effectiveness of cross-culturally adapted interventions within this context. Our stakeholder consultations demonstrated that engaging different community-level stakeholders in the adaptation process was highly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst most included studies indicated improvements in depression and/or anxiety symptoms in young people following a cross-culturally adapted intervention, more work is needed in this area. In particular, focus should be placed upon identifying the dimensions of interventions that should be culturally adapted to make them acceptable, engaging and effective.

One-session treatment is as effective as multi-session therapy for young people with phobias.

The studyWright B, Tindall L, Scott AJ, et al. One-session treatment compared with multisession CBT in children aged 7-16 years with specific phobias: the ASPECT non-inferiority RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022;26:1-174.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/one-session-cbt-treatment-effective-for-young-people-with-phobias/.

Children and Young People's Involvement in Designing Applied Games: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: User involvement is widely accepted as key for designing effective applied games for health. This especially holds true for children and young people as target audiences, whose abilities, needs, and preferences can diverge substantially from those of adult designers and players. Nevertheless, there is little shared knowledge about how concretely children and young people have been involved in the design of applied games, let alone consensus guidance on how to do so effectively. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to describe which user involvement methods have been used in the design of applied games with children and young people, how these methods were implemented, and in what roles children and young people were involved as well as what factors affected their involvement. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search and selection across the ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using State of the Art through Systematic Review software for screening, selection, and data extraction. We then conducted a qualitative content analysis on the extracted data using NVivo. RESULTS: We retrieved 1085 records, of which 47 (4.33%) met the eligibility criteria. The chief involvement methods were participatory design (20/47, 43%) and co-design (16/47, 37%), spanning a wide range of 45 concrete activities with paper prototyping, group discussions, and playtesting being the most frequent. In only half of the studies (24/47, 51%), children and young people participated as true design partners. Our qualitative content analysis suggested 5 factors that affect their successful involvement: comprehension, cohesion, confidence, accessibility, and time constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Co-design, participatory design, and similar high-level labels that are currently used in the field gloss over very uneven degrees of participation in design and a wide variety of implementations that greatly affect actual user involvement. This field would benefit from more careful consideration and documentation of the reason of user involvement. Future research should explore concrete activities and configurations that can address the common challenges of involving children and young people, such as comprehension, cohesion, confidence, and accessibility.

Barriers and enablers for young people, parents and therapists undertaking behavioural activation for depression: A qualitative evaluation within a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent depression is common, long-lasting and debilitating. Behavioural Activation (BA) is a brief, evidence-based therapy for depression in adults with promising outcomes for young people. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how young people, their parents and therapists experienced manualised BA for depression within Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. DESIGN: Participants in a randomised controlled trial aged 12 to17 with depression, their parents and therapists were invited to a semi-structured interview with a researcher to explore their experiences of receiving, supporting or delivering BA. METHODS: Six young people, five parents and five therapists were interviewed. Verbatim interview transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Factors that may optimise delivery of BA were: boosting the young person's motivation, tailoring parental input to the young person's needs/wishes and developing a positive collaboration between the young person and therapist. Engagement with treatment may be hindered by a mismatch between BA delivery and young person's preferences, concurrent mental health comorbidities that are not addressed within a wider care package, lack of parental support and therapist preconceptions against manualised therapy or BA. CONCLUSIONS: Manualised BA for young people requires flexibility and adjustment to meet individual and family needs. Therapist preparation could dispel hindering preconceptions about the suitability and potential value of this brief and simple intervention for young people with complex needs and different learning styles.

Editorial: Control alt delete - technology and children's mental health.

With international contributions from Denmark, Peru, Italy, Turkey, Estonia, Russia, Canada, the USA, Australia and the UK, this special issue offers insights and evidence about the technology's ability to act as a force of good and a source of harm for young people's mental health. As we better understand the complex and bidirectional relationship between technology and mental health, we need to move beyond dichotomous narratives about it being good or bad; it is both, depending on how it is used. Collective responsibility across technology companies, researchers, public services and community organisations, parents and the young people themselves can make a difference in the way technology is used to protect and improve mental health.

One session treatment (OST) is equivalent to multi-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in children with specific phobias (ASPECT): results from a national non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 5%-10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non-inferiority of OST compared to multi-session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP. METHODS: ASPECT was a pragmatic, multi-center, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university-based CYP well-being service. CYP aged 7-16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non-inferiority and a nested cost-effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6-months post-randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal-based outcome measure, and EQ-5DY and CHU-9D, collected blind at baseline and six-months. RESULTS: 268 CYPs were randomized to OST (n = 134) or CBT (n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale-adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST -0.123, 95% CI -0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference -0.204, 95% CI -0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non-inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non-inferior to CBT. No between-group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT. CONCLUSIONS: One Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost-saving alternative.

One-session treatment compared with multisession CBT in children aged 7-16 years with specific phobias: the ASPECT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of children and young people have a specific phobia that can significantly affect their mental health, development and daily functioning. Cognitive-behavioural therapy-based interventions remain the dominant treatment, but limitations to their provision warrant investigation into low-intensity alternatives. One-session treatment is one such alternative that shares cognitive-behavioural therapy principles but has a shorter treatment period. OBJECTIVE: This research investigated the non-inferiority of one-session treatment to cognitive-behavioural therapy for treating specific phobias in children and young people. The acceptability and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment were examined. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and qualitative evaluations. SETTINGS: There were 26 sites, including 12 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 7-16 years and had a specific phobia defined in accordance with established international clinical criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive one-session treatment or usual-care cognitive-behavioural therapy, and were stratified according to age and phobia severity. Outcome assessors remained blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Behavioural Avoidance Task at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, a goal-based outcome measure, Child Health Utility 9D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions Youth version and resource usage. Treatment fidelity was assessed using the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Scale for Children and Young People and the One-Session Treatment Rating Scale. RESULTS: A total of 274 participants were recruited, with 268 participants randomised to one-session treatment (n = 134) or cognitive-behavioural therapy (n = 134). A total of 197 participants contributed some data, with 149 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis and 113 in the per-protocol analysis. Mean Behavioural Avoidance Task scores at 6 months were similar across treatment groups when both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied [cognitive-behavioural therapy: 7.1 (intention to treat), 7.4 (per protocol); one-session treatment: 7.4 (intention to treat), 7.6 (per protocol); on the standardised scale adjusted mean difference for cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with one-session treatment -0.123, 95% confidence interval -0.449 to 0.202 (intention to treat), mean difference -0.204, 95% confidence interval -0.579 to 0.171 (per protocol)]. These findings were wholly below the standardised non-inferiority limit of 0.4, which suggests that one-session treatment is non-inferior to cognitive-behavioural therapy. No between-group differences in secondary outcome measures were found. The health economics evaluation suggested that, compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy, one-session treatment marginally decreased the mean service use costs and maintained similar mean quality-adjusted life-year improvement. Nested qualitative evaluation found one-session treatment to be considered acceptable by those who received it, their parents/guardians and clinicians. No adverse events occurred as a result of phobia treatment. LIMITATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic meant that 48 children and young people could not complete the primary outcome measure. Service waiting times resulted in some participants not starting therapy before follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: One-session treatment for specific phobia in UK-based child mental health treatment centres is as clinically effective as multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy and highly likely to be cost-saving. Future work could involve improving the implementation of one-session treatment through training and commissioning of improved care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN19883421. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A phobia is an intense, ongoing fear of an everyday object or situation. The phobia causes distress and the person with the phobia avoids that object or situation. Many children and young people have phobias that affect their daily lives. Cognitive­behavioural therapy helps by changing what people do or think when they have a phobia and is the most common treatment approach. However, cognitive­behavioural therapy is expensive, takes time and is not always easy to get. Different treatments are needed to help children and young people with specific phobias. One such therapy is one-session treatment, which works in similar ways to cognitive­behavioural therapy but takes place over one main 3-hour session. Our study, called ASPECT (Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial), compared these two treatments to examine whether or not one-session treatment is as effective as cognitive­behavioural therapy. Overall, 274 children and young people aged 7­16 years from 26 sites nationally helped with our research, of whom 268 received either cognitive­behavioural therapy or one-session treatment. The results at 6 months found that one-session treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy worked as well as each other for treating phobias in children and young people. We also found evidence that one-session treatment is cheaper than cognitive­behavioural therapy. We spoke with children and young people, their parents/guardians and the therapists of the single-session treatment, and we found one-session treatment to be acceptable for their needs. Future research could explore how to make one-session treatment more easily available for children and young people with specific phobias because it can save time and money, and works just as well as cognitive­behavioural therapy.

Exploring the contextual factors, behaviour change techniques, barriers and facilitators of interventions to improve oral health in people with severe mental illness: A qualitative study.

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have significantly poorer oral health compared to people without SMI and interventions targetted to improve oral health in this population failed to show any long-term improvement. Interventions are influenced by many contextual factors ranging from individual to systems level. This study aimed to understand the contextual factors, behaviour change techniques of the available oral health interventions and explore the barriers to and facilitators for engagement with these interventions from the perspectives of people with SMI (service users) and related service providers. Intervention details were extracted from 12 intervention studies identified from a previous systematic review using the template for intervention description and replication checklist (TIDieR) and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were coded using the behaviour change technique taxonomy v1. Sixteen individual BCTs were identified and out of which "4.1 instructions on how to perform the behaviour" (n = 9) and "6.1 demonstration of behaviour" (n = 6) were most frequently used BCTs. Video vignettes prepared from the different intervention components identified from existing studies were shown to service users and service providers in dyadic or one-to-one interview format to elicit their views on barriers and facilitators for engagement with the intervention components. Interviews were analysed using Framework analysis and were guided by theoretical domains framework (TDF); and capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) model of behaviour change. Main facilitators identified to increase capability, opportunity and motivation of service users were the involvement of carers/care coordinators and integration of dental and mental health care, provision of oral health/hygiene information/products at an appropriate level and provision of tailored support according to individual needs and preferences. Barriers identified were related to lack of communication skills of the service providers, provision of coordinated care, lack of support in visiting a dentist and navigating the payment system and long follow up times. Appropriate training was considered as a facilitator, and staff turnovers and workload were considered as main barriers by the service providers. The findings suggest that comprehensive interventions that target barriers and enhance facilitators from individual to systems level are needed to improve oral health outcomes of people with SMI.

Cost and effectiveness of one session treatment (OST) for children and young people with specific phobias compared to multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT): results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, around 93,000 (0.8%) children and young people (CYP) are experiencing specific phobias that have a substantial impact on daily life. The current gold-standard treatment-multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) - is effective at reducing specific phobia severity; however, CBT is time consuming, requires specialist CBT therapists, and is often at great cost and limited availability. A briefer variant of CBT called one session treatment (OST) has been found to offer similar clinical effectiveness for specific phobia as multi-session CBT. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of OST compared to multi-session CBT for CYP with specific phobias through the Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT), a two-arm, pragmatic, multi-centre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. METHODS: CYP aged seven to 16 years with specific phobias were recruited nationally via Health and Social Care pathways, remotely randomised to the intervention group (OST) or the control group (CBT-based therapies) and analysed (n = 267). Resource use based on NHS and personal social services perspective and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-Y were collected at baseline and at six-month follow-up. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to capture the uncertainty around the ICER estimates. The results were presented on a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). A set of sensitivity analyses (including taking a societal perspective) were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary findings. RESULTS: After adjustment and bootstrapping, on average CYP in the OST group incurred less costs (incremental cost was -£302.96 (95% CI -£598.86 to -£28.61)) and maintained similar improvement in QALYs (QALYs gained 0.002 (95% CI - 0.004 to 0.008)). The CEAC shows that the probability of OST being cost-effective was over 95% across all the WTP thresholds. Results of a set of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared to CBT, OST produced a reduction in costs and maintained similar improvement in QALYs. Results from both primary and sensitivity analyses suggested that OST was highly likely to be cost saving. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19883421 (30/11/2016).

A Qualitative Study Exploring the Barriers and Facilitators for Maintaining Oral Health and Using Dental Service in People with Severe Mental Illness: Perspectives from Service Users and Service Providers.

People with severe mental illness suffer from a high burden of oral diseases, which can negatively impact their physical and mental well-being. Despite the high burden, they are less likely to engage in oral health care including accessing dental services. We aimed to identify both the service users' and service providers' perspective on the barriers and facilitators for maintaining oral health and dental service use in people with severe mental illness. Qualitative exploration was undertaken using dyadic or one-to-one in-depth interviews with service users in the UK with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder. Service providers, including mental health and dental health professionals, and informal carers (people identified as family or friend who are not paid carers) were also interviewed. Thematic analysis of the data revealed three main cross-cutting themes at the personal, inter-personal and systems level: amelioration of the problem, using a tailored approach and provision of comprehensive support. The main barriers identified were impact of mental ill-health, lack of patient involvement and tailored approach, and accessibility and availability of dental services including lack of integration of services. The main facilitators identified were service providers' effective communication skills and further support through the involvement of carers. The findings suggest that the integration of dental and mental health services to provide tailored support for overall health and well-being, including the oral health of the patient, can better support people with severe mental illness regarding their oral health needs.

Digital interventions in mental health: evidence syntheses and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations provide evidence on whether or not digital interventions offer value for money, based on their costs and outcomes relative to the costs and outcomes of alternatives. OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate and summarise published economic studies about digital interventions across different technologies, therapies, comparators and mental health conditions; (2) synthesise clinical evidence about digital interventions for an exemplar mental health condition; (3) construct an economic model for the same exemplar mental health condition using the previously synthesised clinical evidence; and (4) consult with stakeholders about how they understand and assess the value of digital interventions. METHODS: We completed four work packages: (1) a systematic review and quality assessment of economic studies about digital interventions; (2) a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; (3) an economic model and value-of-information analysis on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; and (4) a series of knowledge exchange face-to-face and digital seminars with stakeholders. RESULTS: In work package 1, we reviewed 76 economic evaluations: 11 economic models and 65 within-trial analyses. Although the results of the studies are not directly comparable because they used different methods, the overall picture suggests that digital interventions are likely to be cost-effective, compared with no intervention and non-therapeutic controls, whereas the value of digital interventions compared with face-to-face therapy or printed manuals is unclear. In work package 2, we carried out two network meta-analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials of digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder with a total of 2350 participants. The results were used to inform our economic model, but when considered on their own they were inconclusive because of the very wide confidence intervals. In work package 3, our decision-analytic model found that digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder were associated with lower net monetary benefit than medication and face-to-face therapy, but greater net monetary benefit than non-therapeutic controls and no intervention. Value for money was driven by clinical outcomes rather than by intervention costs, and a value-of-information analysis suggested that uncertainty in the treatment effect had the greatest value (£12.9B). In work package 4, stakeholders identified several areas of benefits and costs of digital interventions that are important to them, including safety, sustainability and reducing waiting times. Four factors may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing patient choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial uncertainty around effect estimates of digital interventions compared with alternatives. This uncertainty was driven by the small number of studies informing most comparisons, the small samples in some of these studies and the studies' high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Digital interventions may offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or 'doing something non-therapeutic' (e.g. monitoring or having a general discussion), but their added value compared with medication, face-to-face therapy and printed manuals is uncertain. Clinical outcomes rather than intervention costs drive 'value for money'. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to develop digital interventions that are more effective, rather than just cheaper, than their alternatives. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105837. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Digital interventions are activities accessed via technology platforms (e.g. computers, smartphones and virtual reality) that can improve users' mental health and reduce addiction problems. To assess whether or not digital interventions offer 'value for money', we needed to compare their costs and outcomes with the costs and outcomes of alternatives, such as face-to-face therapy and medication. This was done through economic evaluations. This project consisted of four work packages. In work package 1, we reviewed 76 published economic evaluations of digital interventions for different mental health and addiction problems. We could not directly compare their results because of differences in the methods that were used, but the overall picture suggested that digital interventions could offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or simply monitoring someone or giving them general information. The picture was unclear when digital interventions were compared with face-to-face therapy. In work package 2, we pooled research studies that evaluated the outcomes of digital interventions in reducing anxiety and worry; the results were inconclusive because we were uncertain about the differences in outcomes between digital interventions and alternatives. In work package 3, an economic model suggested that value for money in digital interventions is driven by how good they are and not by how much they cost. In work package 4, we presented our methods and results to service users, mental health professionals and researchers who wanted to know more about the value of digital interventions for specific groups (e.g. children and older adults) and for outcomes other than reducing symptoms (e.g. reducing waiting times for treatment and improving attendance for therapy). Finally, the stakeholders highlighted four factors that may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'.

Out of pocket expenses in obsessive compulsive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Despite anecdotal evidence that the out of pocket costs of OCD can be substantial in some cases, there is no evidence on how many people they affect, or the magnitude of these costs. AIMS: This paper explores the type and quantity of out of pocket expenses reported by a large sample of adults with OCD. METHODS: Data on out of pocket expenses were collected from participants taking part in the OCTET multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were aged 18+, meeting DSM-IV criteria for OCD, and scoring 16+ on the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Individual-level resource use data including a description and estimated cost of out of pocket expenses were measured using an adapted version of the Adult Service Use Schedule (AD-SUS): a questionnaire used to collect data on resource use. RESULTS: Forty-five percent (208/465) reported out of pocket expenses due to their OCD. The mean cost of out of pocket expenses was £19.19 per week (SD £27.56 SD), range £0.06-£224.00. CONCLUSIONS: Future economic evaluations involving participants with OCD should include out of pocket expenses, but careful consideration of alternative approaches to the collection and costing of this data is needed.

Cost Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions (DIs) are increasingly being used in mental health care, despite limited evidence regarding their value for money. This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of DIs for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), in comparison with alternative care options, from the perspective of the UK health care system. METHODS: An open-source decision analytic cohort model was used to extrapolate the results of a network meta-analysis over a patient's lifetime and estimate the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years) of DIs and their comparators. The net monetary benefit (NMB) and probability of cost effectiveness was estimated for each comparator, and we conducted a Value of Information analysis to evaluate the scale and drivers of uncertainty. RESULTS: DIs were associated with lower NMB compared with medication and with group therapy, but greater NMB compared with non-therapeutic controls and with usual care. DIs that were supported by a clinician, an assistant or a lay person had higher delivery costs than purely patient-self-directed DIs, yielding a greater NMB when opportunity cost was above £3000/QALY. There was considerable uncertainty in the findings driven largely by uncertainty in the estimated treatment effects. The value of further research to establish the effectiveness of DIs for GAD was substantial, at least £12.9 billion. CONCLUSIONS: The high uncertainty about these results does not allow for recommendations based on the cost effectiveness of DIs. However, the analysis highlights areas for future research, and demonstrates that apparent cost savings associated with DIs can be offset by reduced effectiveness.

Digital Interventions for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD): Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Generalized anxiety disorder is the most common mental health condition based on weekly prevalence. Digital interventions have been used as alternatives or as supplements to conventional therapies to improve access, patient choice, and clinical outcomes. Little is known about their comparative effectiveness for generalized anxiety disorder. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing digital interventions with medication, non-digital interventions, non-therapeutic controls, and no intervention. Results: We included 21 randomized controlled trials with a total of 2,350 participants from generalized anxiety disorder populations. Pooled outcomes using analysis of Covariance and rankograms based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves indicated that antidepressant medication and group therapy had a higher probability than digital interventions of being the "best" intervention. Supported digital interventions were not necessarily "better" than unsupported (pure self-help) ones. Conclusions: Due to very wide confidence intervals, network meta-analysis results were inconclusive as to whether digital interventions are better than no intervention and non-therapeutic active controls, or whether they confer an additional benefit to standard therapy. Future research needs to compare digital interventions with one-to-one therapy and with manualized non-digital self-help and to include antidepressant medication as a treatment comparator and effect modifier.

Editorial Perspective: Missing the forest for the trees - how the focus on digital addiction and gaming diverted attention away from wider online risks.

Despite the many ways in which Internet-related technologies can affect psychology, research into the Internet's mental health consequences has disproportionately focussed on the narrow topics of online addiction and the closely related Internet gaming disorder. Over two decades into the online revolution, the Internet is being blamed for dramatic transformations, including a rise in extremism, social polarization and weakened democracies. In trying to understand how these shifts could have happened, or how they might be contained, society looks to mental health experts - after all, it is the interaction between technology and human psychology that is encouraging certain behaviours online and discouraging others. The field, however, has precious little to offer by way of explanations. To no small degree, this is due to the tendency to approach online psychological problems primarily through the addiction framework. The result has been to blind us to other important traits and phenomena that are playing out online and on social media, including impulsivity, aggression, inattention, narcissism and the psychological meaning of living in a postprivacy world. The article covers historical aspects of how the addiction model came to dominate the field; some insufficiently heeded early warning signals about other online ills and the big price society is paying today for this approach. We end with a call for a significant broadening of the focus of research when it comes to online psychopathology.

Systematic Review and Critique of Methods for Economic Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Investment in digital interventions for mental health conditions is growing rapidly, offering the potential to elevate systems that are currently overstretched. Despite a growing literature on economic evaluation of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs), including several systematic reviews, there is no conclusive evidence regarding their cost-effectiveness. This paper reviews the methodology used to determine their cost-effectiveness and assesses whether this meets the requirements for decision-making. In doing so we consider the challenges specific to the economic evaluation of DMHIs, and identify where consensus and possible further research is warranted. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify all economic evaluations of DMHIs published between 1997 and December 2018. The searches included databases of published and unpublished research, reference lists and citations of all included studies, forward citations on all identified protocols and conference abstracts, and contacting authors researchers in the field. The identified studies were critiqued against a published set of requirements for decision-making in healthcare, identifying methodological challenges and areas where consensus is required. RESULTS: The review identified 67 papers evaluating DMHIs. The majority of the evaluations were conducted alongside trials, failing to capture all relevant available evidence and comparators, and long-term impact of mental health disorders. The identified interventions are complex and heterogeneous. As a result, there are a number of challenges specific to their evaluation, including estimation of all costs and outcomes, conditional on analysis viewpoint, and identification of relevant comparators. A taxonomy for DMHIs may be required to inform what interventions can reasonably be pooled and compared. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first attempt to understand the appropriateness of the methodologies used to evaluate the value for money of DMHIs, helping work towards consensus and methods' harmonisation on these complex interventions.