Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Interventions to improve early detection of childhood cancer in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) lag behind those in high-income countries (HICs), in part due to late presentation and diagnosis. Though several interventions targeting early detection of childhood cancer have been implemented in LMICs, little is known about their efficacy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies describing such interventions. We searched multiple databases from inception to December 4, 2019. Studies were included if they reported on LMIC interventions focused on: (a) training of health care providers on early recognition of childhood cancer, or (ii) public awareness campaigns. We used preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct our review. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) checklist was used to assess quality of studies. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria (n = 5 full text, n = 7 abstract only). Five studies focused on retinoblastoma only, while the others focused on all types of childhood cancer. The majority studied multiple interventions of which early detection was one component, but reported overall outcomes. All identified studies used pre-post evaluative designs to measure efficacy. Five studies reported statistically significant results postintervention: decrease in extraocular spread of retinoblastoma, decrease in rates of refusal/abandonment of treatment, increase in number of new referrals, increase in knowledge, and an absolute increase in median 5-year survival. Other studies reported improvements without tests of statistical significance. Two studies reported no difference in survival postintervention. The ROBINS-I checklist indicated that all studies were at serious risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Though current evidence suggests that LMIC interventions targeting early detection of childhood cancer through health professional training and/or public awareness campaigns may be effective, this evidence is limited and of poor quality. Robust trials or quasi-experimental designs with long-term follow up are needed to identify the most effective interventions. Such studies will facilitate and inform the widespread uptake of early detection interventions across LMIC settings.

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI]=$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making.

Economics of Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The health and economic burden of hypertension, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is substantial. This systematic review evaluated the economic evidence of self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring interventions to control hypertension. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The literature search from database inception to March 2015 identified 22 studies for inclusion with three types of interventions: SMBP used alone, SMBP with additional support, and SMBP within team-based care (TBC). Two formulae were used to convert reductions in systolic BP (SBP) to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to produce cost per QALY saved. All analyses were conducted in 2015, with estimates adjusted to 2014 U.S. dollars. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Median costs of intervention were $60 and $174 per person for SMBP alone and SMBP with additional support, respectively, and $732 per person per year for SMBP within TBC. SMBP alone and SMBP with additional support reduced healthcare cost per person per year from outpatient visits and medication (medians $148 and $3, respectively; median follow-up, 12-13 months). SMBP within TBC exhibited an increase in healthcare cost (median, $369 per person per year; median follow-up, 18 months). SMBP alone varied from cost saving to a maximum cost of $144,000 per QALY saved, with two studies reporting an increase in SBP. The two translated median costs per QALY saved were $2,800 and $4,000 for SMBP with additional support and $7,500 and $10,800 for SMBP within TBC. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP monitoring interventions with additional support or within TBC are cost effective. Cost effectiveness of SMBP used alone could not be determined.

Cost and economic benefit of clinical decision support systems for cardiovascular disease prevention: a community guide systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This review evaluates costs and benefits associated with acquiring, implementing, and operating clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Methods developed for the Community Guide were used to review CDSS literature covering the period from January 1976 to October 2015. Twenty-one studies were identified for inclusion. RESULTS: It was difficult to draw a meaningful estimate for the cost of acquiring and operating CDSSs to prevent CVD from the available studies ( n = 12) due to considerable heterogeneity. Several studies ( n = 11) indicated that health care costs were averted by using CDSSs but many were partial assessments that did not consider all components of health care. Four cost-benefit studies reached conflicting conclusions about the net benefit of CDSSs based on incomplete assessments of costs and benefits. Three cost-utility studies indicated inconsistent conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness based on a conservative $50,000 threshold. DISCUSSION: Intervention costs were not negligible, but specific estimates were not derived because of the heterogeneity of implementation and reporting metrics. Expected economic benefits from averted health care cost could not be determined with confidence because many studies did not fully account for all components of health care. CONCLUSION: We were unable to conclude whether CDSSs for CVD prevention is either cost-beneficial or cost-effective. Several evidence gaps are identified, most prominently a lack of information about major drivers of cost and benefit, a lack of standard metrics for the cost of CDSSs, and not allowing for useful life of a CDSS that generally extends beyond one accounting period.

Practice-Based Evidence in Community Guide Systematic Reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative contributions and quality of practice-based evidence (PBE) and research-based evidence (RBE) in The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). METHODS: We developed operational definitions for PBE and RBE in which the main distinguishing feature was whether allocation of participants to intervention and comparison conditions was under the control of researchers (RBE) or not (PBE). We conceptualized a continuum between RBE and PBE. We then categorized 3656 studies in 202 reviews completed since The Community Guide began in 1996. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of studies were PBE and 46% RBE. Community-based and policy reviews had more PBE. Health care system and programmatic reviews had more RBE. The majority of both PBE and RBE studies were of high quality according to Community Guide scoring methods. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of substantial PBE in Community Guide reviews suggests that evidence of adequate rigor to inform practice is being produced. This should increase stakeholders' confidence that The Community Guide provides recommendations with real-world relevance. Limitations in some PBE studies suggest a need for strengthening practice-relevant designs and external validity reporting standards.

Economics of Team-based Care in Controlling Blood Pressure: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: High blood pressure is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke, the leading cause of death in the U.S., and a substantial national burden through lost productivity and medical care. A recent Community Guide systematic review found strong evidence of effectiveness of team-based care in improving blood pressure control. The objective of the present review is to determine from the economic literature whether team-based care for blood pressure control is cost beneficial or cost effective. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Electronic databases of papers published January 1980-May 2012 were searched to find economic evaluations of team-based care interventions to improve blood pressure outcomes, yielding 31 studies for inclusion. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In analyses conducted in 2012, intervention cost, healthcare cost averted, benefit-to-cost ratios, and cost effectiveness were abstracted from the studies. The quality of estimates for intervention and healthcare cost from each study were assessed using three elements: intervention focus on blood pressure control, incremental estimates in the intervention group relative to a control group, and inclusion of major cost-driving elements in estimates. Intervention cost per unit reduction in systolic blood pressure was converted to lifetime intervention cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved using algorithms from published trials. CONCLUSIONS: Team-based care to improve blood pressure control is cost effective based on evidence that 26 of 28 estimates of $/QALY gained from ten studies were below a conservative threshold of $50,000. This finding is salient to recent U.S. healthcare reforms and coordinated patient-centered care through formation of Accountable Care Organizations.

Clinical Decision Support Systems and Prevention: A Community Guide Cardiovascular Disease Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can help clinicians assess cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and manage CVD risk factors by providing tailored assessments and treatment recommendations based on individual patient data. The goal of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of CDSSs in improving screening for CVD risk factors, practices for CVD-related preventive care services such as clinical tests and prescribed treatments, and management of CVD risk factors. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An existing systematic review (search period, January 1975-January 2011) of CDSSs for any condition was initially identified. Studies of CDSSs that focused on CVD prevention in that review were combined with studies identified through an updated search (January 2011-October 2012). Data analysis was conducted in 2013. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 45 studies qualified for inclusion in the review. Improvements were seen for recommended screening and other preventive care services completed by clinicians, recommended clinical tests completed by clinicians, and recommended treatments prescribed by clinicians (median increases of 3.8, 4.0, and 2.0 percentage points, respectively). Results were inconsistent for changes in CVD risk factors such as systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1C levels. CONCLUSIONS: CDSSs are effective in improving clinician practices related to screening and other preventive care services, clinical tests, and treatments. However, more evidence is needed from implementation of CDSSs within the broad context of comprehensive service delivery aimed at reducing CVD risk and CVD-related morbidity and mortality.

Effects of mental health benefits legislation: a community guide systematic review.

CONTEXT: Health insurance benefits for mental health services typically have paid less than benefits for physical health services, resulting in potential underutilization or financial burden for people with mental health conditions. Mental health benefits legislation was introduced to improve financial protection (i.e., decrease financial burden) and to increase access to, and use of, mental health services. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of mental health benefits legislation, including executive orders, in improving mental health. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methods developed for the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. The evidence included studies published or reported from 1965 to March 2011 with at least one of the following outcomes: access to care, financial protection, appropriate utilization, quality of care, diagnosis of mental illness, morbidity and mortality, and quality of life. Analyses were conducted in 2012. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty eligible studies were identified in 37 papers. Implementation of mental health benefits legislation was associated with financial protection (decreased out-of-pocket costs) and appropriate utilization of services. Among studies examining the impact of legislation strength, most found larger positive effects for comprehensive parity legislation or policies than for less-comprehensive ones. Few studies assessed other mental health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that mental health benefits legislation, particularly comprehensive parity legislation, is effective in improving financial protection and increasing appropriate utilization of mental health services for people with mental health conditions. Evidence was limited for other mental health outcomes.

Legislations and policies to expand mental health and substance abuse benefits in health insurance plans: a community guide systematic economic review.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance plans have historically limited the benefits for mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) services compared to benefits for physical health services. In recent years, legislative and policy initiatives in the U.S. have been taken to expand MH/SA health insurance benefits and achieve parity with physical health benefits. The relevance of these legislations for international audiences is also explored, particularly for the European context. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This paper reviews the evidence of costs and economic benefits of legislative or policy interventions to expand MH/SA health insurance benefits in the U.S. The objectives are to assess the economic value of the interventions by comparing societal cost to societal benefits, and to determine impact on costs to insurance plans resulting from expansion of these benefits. METHODS: The search for economic evidence covered literature published from January 1950 to March 2011 and included evaluations of federal and state laws or rules that expanded MH/SA benefits as well as voluntary actions by large employers. Two economists screened and abstracted the economic evidence of MH/SA benefits legislation based on standard economic and actuarial concepts and methods. RESULTS: The economic review included 12 studies: eleven provided evidence on cost impact to health plans, and one estimated the effect on suicides. There was insufficient evidence to determine if the intervention was cost-effective or cost-saving. However, the evidence indicates that MH/SA benefits expansion did not lead to any substantial increase in costs to insurance plans, measured as a percentage of insurance premiums. DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS: This review is unable to determine the overall economic value of policies that expanded MH/SA insurance benefits due to lack of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit studies, predominantly due to the lack of evaluations of morbidity and mortality outcomes. This may be remedied in time when long-term MH/SA patient-level data becomes available to researchers. A limitation of this review is that legislations considered here have been superseded by recent legislations that have stronger and broader impacts on MH/SA benefits within private and public insurance: Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: Economic assessments over the long term such as cost per QALY saved and cost-benefit will be feasible as more data becomes available from plans that implemented recent expansions of MH/SA benefits. Results from these evaluations will allow a better estimate of the economic impact of the interventions from a societal perspective. Future research should also evaluate the more downstream effects on business decisions about labor, such as effects on hiring, retention, and the offer of health benefits as part of an employee compensation package. Finally, the economic effect of the far reaching ACA of 2010 on mental health and substance abuse prevalence and care is also a subject for future research.

Team-based care and improved blood pressure control: a community guide systematic review.

CONTEXT: Uncontrolled hypertension remains a widely prevalent cardiovascular risk factor in the U.S. team-based care, established by adding new staff or changing the roles of existing staff such as nurses and pharmacists to work with a primary care provider and the patient. Team-based care has the potential to improve the quality of hypertension management. The goal of this Community Guide systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of team-based care in improving blood pressure (BP) outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An existing systematic review (search period, January 1980-July 2003) assessing team-based care for BP control was supplemented with a Community Guide update (January 2003-May 2012). For the Community Guide update, two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed quality of eligible studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-eight studies in the prior review (1980-2003) and an additional 52 studies from the Community Guide update (2003-2012) qualified for inclusion. Results from both bodies of evidence suggest that team-based care is effective in improving BP outcomes. From the update, the proportion of patients with controlled BP improved (median increase=12 percentage points); systolic BP decreased (median reduction=5.4 mmHg); and diastolic BP also decreased (median reduction=1.8 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: Team-based care increased the proportion of people with controlled BP and reduced both systolic and diastolic BP, especially when pharmacists and nurses were part of the team. Findings are applicable to a range of U.S. settings and population groups. Implementation of this multidisciplinary approach will require health system-level organizational changes and could be an important element of the medical home.

Collaborative care to improve the management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: To improve the quality of depression management, collaborative care models have been developed from the Chronic Care Model over the past 20 years. Collaborative care is a multicomponent, healthcare system-level intervention that uses case managers to link primary care providers, patients, and mental health specialists. In addition to case management support, primary care providers receive consultation and decision support from mental health specialists (i.e., psychiatrists and psychologists). This collaboration is designed to (1) improve routine screening and diagnosis of depressive disorders; (2) increase provider use of evidence-based protocols for the proactive management of diagnosed depressive disorders; and (3) improve clinical and community support for active client/patient engagement in treatment goal-setting and self-management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A team of subject matter experts in mental health, representing various agencies and institutions, conceptualized and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on collaborative care for improving the management of depressive disorders. This team worked under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent, volunteer body of public health and prevention experts. Community Guide systematic review methods were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: An earlier systematic review with 37 RCTs of collaborative care studies published through 2004 found evidence of effectiveness of these models in improving depression outcomes. An additional 32 studies of collaborative care models conducted between 2004 and 2009 were found for this current review and analyzed. The results from the meta-analyses suggest robust evidence of effectiveness of collaborative care in improving depression symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.34); adherence to treatment (OR=2.22); response to treatment (OR=1.78); remission of symptoms (OR=1.74); recovery from symptoms (OR=1.75); quality of life/functional status (SMD=0.12); and satisfaction with care (SMD=0.39) for patients diagnosed with depression (all effect estimates were significant). CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care models are effective in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in depression outcomes and public health benefits in a wide range of populations, settings, and organizations. Collaborative care interventions provide a supportive network of professionals and peers for patients with depression, especially at the primary care level.

Economics of collaborative care for management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review.

CONTEXT: Major depressive disorders are frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. Collaborative Care models developed from the Chronic Care Model during the past 20 years have improved the quality of depression management in the community, raising intervention cost incrementally above usual care. This paper assesses the economic efficiency of collaborative care for management of depressive disorders by comparing its economic costs and economic benefits to usual care, as informed by a systematic review of the literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The economic review of collaborative care for management of depressive disorders was conducted in tandem with a review of effectiveness, under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent group of public health leaders and experts. Economic review methods developed by the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used by two economists to screen, abstract, adjust, and summarize the economic evidence of collaborative care from societal and other perspectives. An earlier economic review that included eight RCTs was included as part of the evidence. The present economic review expanded the evidence with results from studies published from 1980 to 2009 and included both RCTs and other study designs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In addition to the eight RCTs included in the earlier review, 22 more studies of collaborative care that provided estimates for economic outcomes were identified, 20 of which were evaluations of actual interventions and two of which were based on models. Of seven studies that measured only economic benefits of collaborative care in terms of averted healthcare or productivity loss, four found positive economic benefits due to intervention and three found minimal or no incremental benefit. Of five studies that measured both benefits and costs, three found lower collaborative care cost because of reduced healthcare utilization or enhanced productivity, and one found the same for a subpopulation of the intervention group. One study found that willingness to pay for collaborative care exceeded program costs. Among six cost-utility studies, five found collaborative care was cost effective. In two modeled studies, one showed cost effectiveness based on comparison of $/disability-adjusted life-year to annual per capita income; the other demonstrated cost effectiveness based on the standard threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year, unadjusted for inflation. Finally, six of eight studies in the earlier review reported that interventions were cost effective on the basis of the standard threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates that collaborative care for management of depressive disorders provides good economic value.