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

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.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.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.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.

[1]  C. Mihalopoulos,et al.  School-based socio-emotional learning programs to prevent depression, anxiety and suicide among adolescents: a global cost-effectiveness analysis , 2023, Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.

[2]  S. Saxena,et al.  The global return on investment from preventing and treating adolescent mental disorders and suicide: a modelling study , 2022, BMJ Global Health.

[3]  Reed J. D. Sorensen,et al.  Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic , 2021, The Lancet.

[4]  D. Santomauro,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of banning highly hazardous pesticides to prevent suicides due to pesticide self-ingestion across 14 countries: an economic modelling study , 2020, The Lancet. Global health.

[5]  M. Knapp,et al.  Economics and mental health: the current scenario , 2020, World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association.

[6]  P. Cuijpers,et al.  Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: a global return on investment analysis. , 2016, The lancet. Psychiatry.

[7]  Gavin Yamey,et al.  Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation , 2013, The Lancet.

[8]  S. Saxena,et al.  Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat neuropsychiatric conditions in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  T. B. Üstün,et al.  Days out of role due to common physical and mental conditions: results from the WHO World Mental Health surveys , 2010, Molecular Psychiatry.