ArticleBJPsych open2026
Cost-effectiveness of targeted feedback interventions after depression screening in primary care: health economic evaluation of the GET.FEEDBACK.GP trial.
Article in BJPsych open, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDepression screening in primary care has been widely discussed, but its economic implications have remained largely unexplored. The GET.FEEDBACK.GP randomised controlled trial evaluated feedback interventions after depression screening in primary care. The study arms were (a) feedback provided to the general practitioner; (b) feedback to both the patient and the treating general practitioner; and (c) a control group without feedback. Analysis of clinical effectiveness revealed that feedback interventions were not associated with decreased depression severity. Their economic implications were the subject of this study.
aimsTo evaluate the economic impact of general-practitioner- and patient-targeted feedback following depression screening for adults in German primary care.
methodA cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective of feedback interventions after depression screening with a time horizon of 12 months was conducted. Direct and indirect costs were estimated. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated on the basis of the EQ-5D-5L, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the net monetary benefit were constructed. Sensitivity analyses and
resultsIn total, 987 participants who screened positive for at least moderate depression were included. Feedback provision was not significantly associated with changes in costs or quality-adjusted life years during follow-up. Cost-effectiveness probabilities of feedback interventions were lower than 50% compared with no feedback. Higher cost-effectiveness probabilities were observed in patients whose suspected depression was confirmed 1 month post-screening and in those with previous depression.
conclusionsThe analysed feedback interventions cannot be considered to be cost-effective for the investigated population. Patient-targeted feedback was potentially cost-effective for subpopulations, particularly patients with a later confirmed depression diagnosis; this requires further research.
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.