ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS OF DIGITAL THERAPEUTICS FOR MENTAL DISORDERS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Author(s)
Minseol Jang, PharmD1, seoyeon lee, .2, Hae Sun Suh, MA, MS, PhD2.
1MS Student, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 2Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.
1MS Student, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 2Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.
OBJECTIVES: This study systematically reviewed economic evaluations of digital therapeutics (DTx) for mental disorders to assess their cost-effectiveness and summarize the methodological characteristics of existing studies.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for studies published through February 2026. Eligible study designs included trial-based, model-based, and economic evaluations assessing DTx for mental disorders compared with control and reporting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios or cost-utility outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics, study perspective, time horizon, discount rate, comparator, outcome measures, incorporation of adherence, handling of uncertainty, and cost-effectiveness outcomes.
RESULTS: Of 264 identified studies, 24 were included in the final review. Depression was the most frequently evaluated indication (n=6), followed by substance use disorder and anxiety (n=3; n=3). Among studies, 20 were trial-based economic evaluations, 3 used decision tree-based approaches, and 1 was based on a prospective cohort study. Most studies (n=15) used short-term time horizons (<1 year), which limited the application of discounting; only 6 studies applied discounting. Most studies adopted a societal perspective (n=16) and 23 studies conducted cost-utility analysis, of which 11 additionally reported cost-effectiveness analysis using clinical outcomes, whereas 1 study conducted only a cost-benefit analysis. Adherence was incorporated into the economic evaluation in 15 studies. Overall, 11 studies reported cost-saving effects of DTx, whereas 9 studies reported increased costs accompanied by improved effectiveness and favorable cost-effectiveness profiles. The remaining 4 studies reported cost-effectiveness in specific subgroup or scenario analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that DTx for mental disorders may provide favorable economic value compared with standard care. However, heterogeneity in economic evaluation methods and limited long-term evidence restrict comparability across studies. Further standardized and long-term economic evaluations are needed to support reimbursement and policy decision-making.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for studies published through February 2026. Eligible study designs included trial-based, model-based, and economic evaluations assessing DTx for mental disorders compared with control and reporting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios or cost-utility outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics, study perspective, time horizon, discount rate, comparator, outcome measures, incorporation of adherence, handling of uncertainty, and cost-effectiveness outcomes.
RESULTS: Of 264 identified studies, 24 were included in the final review. Depression was the most frequently evaluated indication (n=6), followed by substance use disorder and anxiety (n=3; n=3). Among studies, 20 were trial-based economic evaluations, 3 used decision tree-based approaches, and 1 was based on a prospective cohort study. Most studies (n=15) used short-term time horizons (<1 year), which limited the application of discounting; only 6 studies applied discounting. Most studies adopted a societal perspective (n=16) and 23 studies conducted cost-utility analysis, of which 11 additionally reported cost-effectiveness analysis using clinical outcomes, whereas 1 study conducted only a cost-benefit analysis. Adherence was incorporated into the economic evaluation in 15 studies. Overall, 11 studies reported cost-saving effects of DTx, whereas 9 studies reported increased costs accompanied by improved effectiveness and favorable cost-effectiveness profiles. The remaining 4 studies reported cost-effectiveness in specific subgroup or scenario analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that DTx for mental disorders may provide favorable economic value compared with standard care. However, heterogeneity in economic evaluation methods and limited long-term evidence restrict comparability across studies. Further standardized and long-term economic evaluations are needed to support reimbursement and policy decision-making.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-09, ISPOR Asia Pacific 2026, Bangkok, Thailand
Value in Health, Volume 55, Issue S1
Code
EE49
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Trial-Based Economic Evaluation
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas