Trial reportBMJ global health2025
Cost-effectiveness of a technology-assisted peer-delivered perinatal mental health intervention in Pakistan: an economic evaluation using trial evidence.
Trial report in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPerinatal depression in low- and middle-income countries is a global health concern. Interventions to support women suffering from perinatal depression using mental health specialists, such as the WHO Thinking Healthy Programme (WHO-THP), are established but may not be scalable in resource-constrained settings. The technology-assisted peer-delivered THP (THP-TAP) has been developed as a potential solution to deliver an intervention at scale. This study assesses whether the THP-TAP is cost-effective compared with the WHO-THP in Pakistan.
methodUsing data for 980 pregnant women from a cluster-randomised non-inferiority trial in Pakistan, we conducted a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of THP-TAP compared with WHO-THP. Health outcomes are quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in US$ (2022). Costs collected included intervention delivery costs and wider healthcare resource use costs. The trial intervention delivery costs were adapted to 'real-world' intervention delivery costs using evidence and assumptions. Uncertainty was explored through scenario and sensitivity analyses.
resultsDuring the trial, the mean patient QALYs were 0.683 (0.681, 0.685) for WHO-THP and 0.688 (0.686, 0.690) for THP-TAP, resulting in an incremental increase in QALYs of 0.005 (0.002, 0.008). The mean per patient costs were $279 ($268, $290) for WHO-THP and $227 for THP-TAP ($218, $236), resulting in an incremental cost of -$52 (-67, -$38). The per patient delivery costs were estimated at $44 and $24 in the real-world scenario, whereas in the trial they were $59 and $69, for WHO-THP and THP-TAP, respectively.THP-TAP is both more effective and less costly than WHO-THP. These results were robust when considering parameter uncertainty and across various scenarios.
conclusionsOur analysis suggests that THP-TAP could represent a scalable, health-improving and cost-saving intervention to support those with perinatal depression, when compared with WHO-THP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.