• Elizabeth Camacho, Gemma Shields, Emily Eisner, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Simon Gilbody, Elizabeth Littlewood, Dean McMillan, and Kylie Watson.
• University of Manchester.
• Br J Gen Pract. 2023 Jul 1; 73 (suppl 1).

BackgroundThe NHS has limited human and financial resources, with particular pressures in primary care. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) makes decisions on which services can be commissioned within the NHS. Many women experiencing antenatal depression are not identified as such in routine care and so may not access support. Current NICE guidance does not recommend universal case-finding for antenatal depression; however, a programme targeted towards pregnant women with risk factors (for example, previous mental illness, traumatic life events) has not been considered.AimTo explore the cost-effectiveness of case-finding for antenatal depression: targeted vs. universal vs. no case-finding.MethodThe following case-finding tools were evaluated: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Whooley questions, PHQ-9. One- and two-stage strategies were considered (second tool administered following positive response to Whooley questions). A decision tree model of costs and health outcomes from 20-40 weeks' gestation was developed. Health was measured as quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs). Costs included case-finding and treatment for depression.ResultsThe two-stage Whooley/PHQ-9 option was the most cost-effective case-finding strategy. Implementing a universal case-finding strategy was associated with lower costs than no case-finding (£52 vs £61) and more QALYs (0.3458 vs 0.3455). Targeted case-finding has similar costs to no case-finding and more QALYs (0.3459), requiring a spend of £1775 to improve health by 1 QALY.ConclusionUniversal case-finding for antenatal depression is cost-saving and improves health compared with no case-finding. It should be considered by policymakers to improve the identification and support of women experiencing antenatal depression in primary and maternity care.© British Journal of General Practice 2023.

22 keywords...

hide…