Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Mental Health Versus Usual Care During Humanitarian Crises in Lebanon: Pragmatic Randomized Trial
Authors: Abi Hana Racha , Abi Ramia Jinane , Burchert Sebastian , Carswell Kenneth , Cuijpers Pim , Heim Eva , Knaevelsrud Christine , Noun Philip , Sijbrandij Marit , van Ommeren Mark , van’t Hof Edith , Wijnen Ben , Zoghbi Edwina , El Chammay Rabih , Smit Filip 
Published: April 2024

Background

There is evidence from meta-analyses and systematic reviews that digital mental health interventions for depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders tend to be cost-effective. However, no such evidence exists for guided digital mental health care in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) facing humanitarian crises, where the needs are highest. Step-by-Step (SbS), a digital mental health intervention for depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, proved to be effective for Lebanese citizens and war-affected Syrians residing in Lebanon. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of SbS is crucial because Lebanon’s overstretched health care system must prioritize cost-effective treatment options in the face of continuing humanitarian and economic crises.

Objective

This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of SbS in a randomized comparison with enhanced usual care (EUC).

Methods

The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in 2 parallel groups comparing SbS (n=614) with EUC (n=635). The primary outcome was cost (in US $ for the reference year 2019) per treatment response of depressive symptoms, defined as >50% reduction of depressive symptoms measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). The secondary outcome was cost per remission of depressive symptoms, defined as a PHQ score <5 at last follow-up (5 months post baseline). The evaluation was conducted first from the health care perspective then from the societal perspective.

Results

Taking the health care perspective, SbS had an 80% probability to be regarded as cost-effective compared with EUC when there is a willingness to pay US $220 per additional treatment response or US $840 per additional remission. Taking the wider societal perspective, SbS had a >75% probability to be cost-saving while gaining response or remission.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study is the first cost-effectiveness analysis based on a large randomized controlled trial (n=1249) of a guided digital mental health intervention in an LMIC. From the principal findings, 2 implications flowed, from the (1) health care perspective and (2) wider societal perspective. First, our findings suggest that SbS is associated with greater health benefits, albeit for higher costs than EUC. It is up to decision makers in health care to decide if they find the balance between additional health gains and additional health care costs acceptable. Second, as seen from the wider societal perspective, there is a substantial likelihood that SbS is not costing more than EUC but is associated with cost-savings as SBS participants become more productive, thus offsetting their health care costs. This finding may suggest to policy makers that it is in the interest of both population health and the wider Lebanese economy to implement SbS on a wide scale. In brief, SbS may offer a scalable, potentially cost-saving response to humanitarian emergencies in an LMIC.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720769; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03720769

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/21585