School-based socio-emotional learning programs to prevent depression, anxiety and suicide among adolescents: a global cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS: Preventing the occurrence of depression/anxiety and suicide during adolescence can lead to substantive health gains over the course of an individual person’s life. This study set out to identify the expected population-level costs and health impacts of implementing universal and indicated school-based socio-emotional learning (SEL) programs in different country contexts. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to examine the effectiveness of delivering universal and indicated school-based SEL programs to prevent the onset of depression/anxiety and suicide deaths among adolescents. Intervention health impacts were measured in healthy life years gained (HLYGs) over a 100-year time horizon. Country-specific intervention costs were calculated and denominated in 2017 international dollars (2017 I$) under a health systems perspective. Cost-effectiveness findings were subsequently expressed in terms of I$ per HLYG. Analyses were conducted on a group of 20 countries from different regions and income levels, with final results aggregated and presented by country income group – that is, low and lower middle income countries (LLMICs) and upper middle and high-income countries (UMHICs). Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model assumptions. RESULTS: Implementation costs ranged from an annual per capita investment of I$0.10 in LLMICs to I$0.16 in UMHICs for the universal SEL program and I$0.06 in LLMICs to I$0.09 in UMHICs for the indicated SEL program. The universal SEL program generated 100 HLYGs per 1 million population compared to 5 for the indicated SEL program in LLMICs. The cost per HLYG was I$958 in LLMICS and I$2,006 in UMHICs for the universal SEL program and I$11,123 in LLMICs and I$18,473 in UMHICs for the indicated SEL program. Cost-effectiveness findings were highly sensitive to variations around input parameter values involving the intervention effect sizes and the disability weight used to estimate HLYGs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that universal and indicated SEL programs require a low level of investment (in the range of I$0.05 to I$0.20 per head of population) but that universal SEL programs produce significantly greater health benefits at a population level and therefore better value for money (e.g., less than I$1,000 per HLYG in LLMICs). Despite producing fewer population-level health benefits, the implementation of indicated SEL programs may be justified as a means of reducing population inequalities that affect high-risk populations who would benefit from a more tailored intervention approach.