Abstract
Background Diagnoses of “personality disorder” are prevalent among people using community secondary mental health services. Whilst the effectiveness of a range of community-based treatments have been considered, as the NHS budget is finite, it is also important to consider the cost-effectiveness of those interventions.
Aims To assess the cost-effectiveness of primary or secondary care community-based interventions for people with complex emotional needs that meet criteria for a diagnosis of “personality disorder” to inform healthcare policy making.
Method Systematic review (PRESPORO #: CRD42020134068) of five databases, supplemented by reference list screening and citation tracking of included papers. We included economic evaluations of interventions for adults with complex emotional needs associated with a diagnosis of ‘personality disorder’ in community mental health settings published between before 18 September 2019. Study quality was assessed using the CHEERS statement. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise study findings.
Results Eighteen studies were included. The studies mainly evaluated psychotherapeutic interventions. Studies were also identified which evaluated altering the setting in which care was delivered and joint crisis plans. No strong economic evidence to support a single intervention or model of community-based care was identified.
Conclusion There is no robust economic evidence to support a single intervention or model of community-based care for people with complex emotional needs. The review identified the strongest evidence for Dialectical Behavioural Therapy with all three identified studies indicating the intervention is likely to be cost-effective in community settings compared to treatment as usual. Further research is needed to provide robust evidence on the cost-effectiveness of community-based interventions upon which decision makers can confidently base guidelines or allocate resources.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=134068
Funding Statement
Funding: This paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Mental Health (Grant number: PR-PRU-0916-22003). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm's length bodies, or other government departments.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Systematic review - not needed.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Registered to PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020134068).
Data Availability
Data availability is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
