ArticleBMJ public health2026
Beyond health: a systematic review of cross-sector economic implications of school-based mental health programmes in Europe.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the economic evidence on school-based prevention and mental health promotion interventions, focusing on costs and outcomes across key societal sectors, including healthcare, education, social care, criminal justice, as well as in productivity and individual expenses. Design: A systematic review with narrative synthesis was conducted following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis approach, including an assessment of monetised outcomes across all sectors and an additional analysis of non-monetised outcomes in the education sector. Study quality was appraised using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC). Data sources: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Econlit, ERIC and Scopus. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Economic evaluations of school-based prevention or mental health promotion interventions for children or adolescents in Europe that report outcomes across healthcare and other societal sectors. Results: 20 studies were included, comprising different types of economic evaluations as well as trial-based and model-based evaluations. Based on the primary analyses reported in the studies, which consider costs and benefits across multiple societal sectors, most evaluations suggested favourable economic outcomes. Benefits exceeded costs in four out of five (80%) cost-benefit analyses (average cost-benefit ratio of 5.14). Half of the cost-effectiveness analyses found that interventions were more effective but also more costly than the comparator while two interventions were both more effective and less costly. In cost-utility analyses, 9 out of 10 (90%) fell below commonly used thresholds for good value for money. Reported outcomes covered healthcare, education, social care, criminal justice sectors, as well as productivity and individual expenses. Pronounced cost savings from included interventions were observed in productivity and healthcare, with improvements also observed in non-monetised education outcomes. Study quality was mixed. Conclusions: School-based mental health interventions yield cross-sectoral economic benefits and, in many cases, societal returns on investment, in both the short and longer term, by influencing key determinants of health and well-being across multiple sectors.
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.