IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i1d10.1007_s40258-024-00922-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Perinatal Depression Screening: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Xinyue Xie

    (Fudan University, Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, National Health Commission)

  • Sihan Lin

    (Fudan University, Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, National Health Commission)

  • Yi Xia

    (Fudan University, Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, National Health Commission)

  • Di Liang

    (Fudan University, Key Laboratory of Health Technology Assessment, National Health Commission)

Abstract

Objective Perinatal depression (PND) has emerged as a significant public health concern. There is no consensus among countries or organizations on whether to screen for PND. Despite the growing body of evidence regarding the economic value of PND screening, its cost-effectiveness remains inadequately understood due to the heterogeneity of existing studies. This study aims to synthesize the available global evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PND screening compared to routine or usual care to provide a clearer understanding of its economic value. Methods A detailed search strategy was predetermined to identify peer-reviewed publications that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PND screening. We designed a scoping literature review protocol and searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science, for studies published from inception to 10 December 2023. We included studies that conducted full economic evaluations comparing PND screening with usual care or other comparators and excluded studies that were not in English or lacked full texts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the studies. Then, the data regarding costs and effectiveness were extracted and summarized narratively. Results A total of ten eligible studies were included, all of which were evaluated as being of high reporting quality. Nine of these studies compared the economic value of PND screening with usual care without screening, with eight finding that PND screening was generally more cost-effective. The remaining study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two psychosocial assessment models and indicated that both effectively identified women “at risk”. Across studies, PND screening ranged from being dominant (cheaper and more effective than usual care without screening) to costing USD 17,644 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Most included studies used decision trees or Markov models to test if PND screening was cost-effective. Although current economic evaluation studies have mostly suggested PND screening could be more cost-effective than usual care without screening, there is high heterogeneity in terms of participants, screening strategies, screening settings, and perspectives across studies. Conclusions Despite varied settings and designs, most studies consistently indicate PND screening as cost-effective. Further evidence is also required from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), non-Western countries, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to draw a more robust conclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinyue Xie & Sihan Lin & Yi Xia & Di Liang, 2025. "Cost-Effectiveness of Perinatal Depression Screening: A Scoping Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 51-64, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00922-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00922-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00922-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-024-00922-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00922-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.