Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Mental Health Versus Usual Care During Humanitarian Crises in Lebanon: Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence from meta-analyses and systematic reviews that digital mental health interventions for depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders tend to be cost-effective. However, no such evidence exists for guided digital mental health care in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) facing humanitarian crises, where the needs are highest. Step-by-Step (SbS), a digital mental health intervention for depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, proved to be effective for Lebanese citizens and war-affected Syrians residing in Lebanon. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of SbS is crucial because Lebanon's overstretched health care system must prioritize cost-effective treatment options in the face of continuing humanitarian and economic crises. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of SbS in a randomized comparison with enhanced usual care (EUC). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in 2 parallel groups comparing SbS (n=614) with EUC (n=635). The primary outcome was cost (in US $ for the reference year 2019) per treatment response of depressive symptoms, defined as >50% reduction of depressive symptoms measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). The secondary outcome was cost per remission of depressive symptoms, defined as a PHQ score <5 at last follow-up (5 months post baseline). The evaluation was conducted first from the health care perspective then from the societal perspective. RESULTS: Taking the health care perspective, SbS had an 80% probability to be regarded as cost-effective compared with EUC when there is a willingness to pay US $220 per additional treatment response or US $840 per additional remission. Taking the wider societal perspective, SbS had a >75% probability to be cost-saving while gaining response or remission. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first cost-effectiveness analysis based on a large randomized controlled trial (n=1249) of a guided digital mental health intervention in an LMIC. From the principal findings, 2 implications flowed, from the (1) health care perspective and (2) wider societal perspective. First, our findings suggest that SbS is associated with greater health benefits, albeit for higher costs than EUC. It is up to decision makers in health care to decide if they find the balance between additional health gains and additional health care costs acceptable. Second, as seen from the wider societal perspective, there is a substantial likelihood that SbS is not costing more than EUC but is associated with cost-savings as SBS participants become more productive, thus offsetting their health care costs. This finding may suggest to policy makers that it is in the interest of both population health and the wider Lebanese economy to implement SbS on a wide scale. In brief, SbS may offer a scalable, potentially cost-saving response to humanitarian emergencies in an LMIC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720769; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03720769. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/21585.

Feasibility and uptake of a digital mental health intervention for depression among Lebanese and Syrian displaced people in Lebanon: a qualitative study.

Introduction: Digital interventions are increasingly regarded as a potential solution for the inaccessibility of mental health treatment across low-and-middle-income settings, especially for common mental disorders. Step-by-Step (SbS) is a digital, guided self-help intervention for depression found effective in two Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in Lebanon. For research implementation and further scale-up, this paper reports the results of a qualitative evaluation of SbS among the Lebanese and others and displaced Syrians in Lebanon. Methods: Thirty-four Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were executed with participants of the RCTs, SbS staff members, and external stakeholders. Questions garnered feedback about the feasibility, acceptability, enabling factors, and barriers to adhering to the research, implementation, and the SbS intervention. A thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo, and key themes, topics, and recommendations, on research methods and the intervention itself, were generated and reported. Results: Results showed a high level of acceptability of SbS among Lebanese and Syrians and identified sub-groups for whom acceptance or use might be lower, such as older adults and people with limited access to the internet or smartphones. Furthermore, interviews identified the main enabling factors and barriers to adherence related to the research design, content, and delivery approach. Barriers related to feasibility included lengthy assessments as part of the RCTs, and mistrust related to delays in study compensations. Other common challenges were forgetting login credentials, poor internet connection, being busy and competing needs. Enabling factors and best practices included motivating participants to use the intervention through the weekly support provided by helpers, setting an oral contract for commitment, and dividing the compensations into several installments as part of the RCTs. Recommendations regarding sustainability were given. Discussion: The findings show that overall, SbS is feasible, acceptable, and much needed in Lebanon among the Lebanese and Syrians. This assessment identifies reasons for low adherence to the research and the intervention and presents improvement solutions. Recommendations generated in this paper inform the upscale of SbS and the planning, design, and implementation of future digital interventions in research and service provision settings in the mental health field.

Mental health stigma at primary health care centres in Lebanon: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Mental health-related stigma is a global public health concern and a major barrier to seeking care. In this study, we explored the role of stigma as a barrier to scaling up mental health services in primary health care (PHC) centres in Lebanon. We focused on the experiences of Healthcare Providers (HCPs) providing services to patients with mental health conditions (MHCs), the views of policy makers, and the perceptions of stigma or discrimination among individuals with MHCs. This study was conducted as part of INDIGO-PRIMARY, a larger multinational stigma reduction programme. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 45) were carried out with policy makers (n = 3), PHC management (n = 4), PHC staff (n = 24), and service users (SUs) (n = 14) between August 2018 and September 2019. These interviews explored mental health knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of staff, challenges of providing treatment, and patient outcomes. All interviews were coded using NVivo and a thematic coding framework. RESULTS: The results of this study are presented under three themes: (1) stigma at PHC level, (2) stigma outside PHC centres, and (3) structural stigma. SUs did not testify to discrimination from HCPs but did describe stigmatising behaviour from their families. Interestingly, at the PHC level, stigma reporting differed among staff according to a power gradient. Nurses and social workers did not explicitly report incidents of stigma but described patients with MHCs as uncooperative, underscoring their internalized negative views on mental health. General practitioners and directors were more outspoken than nurses regarding the challenges faced with mental health patients. Mental health professionals revealed that HCPs still hold implicitly negative views towards patients with MHCs however their attitude has improved recently. Our analysis highlights five layers of stigma affecting SUs. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study reveals that stigma was still a key concern that affects patients with MHC. SUs reported experiencing overt stigmatising behaviour in the community but less explicit discrimination in a PHC setting. Our findings emphasise the importance of (1) combatting structural stigma through legal reform, (2) addressing interpersonal stigma, (3) committing PHC management to deliver high quality mental health integrated services, and (4) reducing intrapersonal stigma by building public empathy.

Perspectives of healthcare providers, service users, and family members about mental illness stigma in primary care settings: A multi-site qualitative study of seven countries in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

BACKGROUND: Stigma among healthcare providers is a barrier to the effective delivery of mental health services in primary care. Few studies have been conducted in primary care settings comparing the attitudes of healthcare providers and experiences of people with mental illness who are service users in those facilities. Such research is necessary across diverse global settings to characterize stigma and inform effective stigma reduction. METHODS: Qualitative research was conducted on mental illness stigma in primary care settings in one low-income country (Nepal), two lower-middle income countries (India, Tunisia), one upper-middle-income country (Lebanon), and three high-income countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy). Qualitative interviews were conducted with 248 participants: 64 primary care providers, 11 primary care facility managers, 111 people with mental illness, and 60 family members of people with mental illness. Data were analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Primary care providers endorsed some willingness to help persons with mental illness but reported not having appropriate training and supervision to deliver mental healthcare. They expressed that people with mental illness are aggressive and unpredictable. Some reported that mental illness is incurable, and mental healthcare is burdensome and leads to burnout. They preferred mental healthcare to be delivered by specialists. Service users did not report high levels of discrimination from primary care providers; however, they had limited expectations of support from primary care providers. Service users reported internalized stigma and discrimination from family and community members. Providers and service users reported unreliable psychiatric medication supply and lack of facilities for confidential consultations. Limitations of the study include conducting qualitative interviews in clinical settings and reliance on clinician-researchers in some sites to conduct interviews, which potentially biases respondents to present attitudes and experiences about primary care services in a positive manner. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers' willingness to interact with people with mental illness and receive more training presents an opportunity to address stigmatizing beliefs and stereotypes. This study also raises important methodological questions about the most appropriate strategies to accurately understand attitudes and experiences of people with mental illness. Recommendations are provided for future qualitative research about stigma, such as qualitative interviewing by non-clinical personnel, involving non-clinical staff for recruitment of participants, conducting interviews in non-clinical settings, and partnering with people with mental illness to facilitate qualitative data collection and analysis.