ArticlePloS one2026
Valuing impact: Estimating return on investment of mental health and wellbeing projects for veterans and first responders.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVeterans and first responders like firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and military personnel face higher rates of mental health issues and suicide compared to the general population. Implementing and evaluating mental health projects for Veterans and first responders is crucial for enhancing their ability to serve society effectively. Economic evidence is increasingly used to improve the effectiveness and accountability of health and social programs. However, current methods are insufficient for comparing resource efficiency and value for money across different sectors and countries. This study introduces a novel methodology to accommodate heterogeneity across multiple projects within a grant program, enable standardization, and facilitate comparison in real-world implementation research.
methodsThe choice of perspective in economic evaluation depends on context, stakeholder viewpoints, resource availability, and intended use. We used a flexible approach, combining various methods to standardize resource utilization, valuation, and outcome assessment. This allowed us to estimate an overall return on investment at the program level by pooling diverse projects together. We evaluated costs from the funder's perspective, using general population valuation for healthcare interventions.
resultsWe estimated overall and individual project Return on Investment ratios for the funder's investment in the Mental Health Program, considering both total and in-kind costs. Results show that for every $1 invested in the Veterans and first responders Mental Health Program, the program returns $1.14 in overall health value, slightly exceeding the financial resources invested.
conclusionStandard economic evaluation methodologies do not accommodate real-world complexities and the heterogeneity across projects inherent in grant programs. Yet the development of pragmatic economic methods to assess value and return on investment of grant programs is essential given current funding pressures. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of addressing economic evaluations across heterogenous, international projects. Although not strictly adhering to established methods, our pragmatic approach focuses on funder return on investment. This methodology provides a pathway for economic analysis of grant programs.
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.