RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Are remote mental healthcare interventions cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations of remote mental healthcare JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2022.12.01.22282817 DO 10.1101/2022.12.01.22282817 A1 Clark, Amy A1 Appleton, Rebecca A1 Kalocsanyiova, Erika A1 Gkaintatzi, Evdoxia A1 McCrone, Paul YR 2022 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/02/2022.12.01.22282817.abstract AB Background Remote 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.Aims To 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.Method A 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.Results 7386 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.Conclusions This evidence will be used to inform practice in the UK as we respond to and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Mental Health. AC was funded through an NIHR research fellowship.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis is a systematic review and no primary data have been colelcted.