title: Priority-setting for mental health services.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Economic evaluation of individual interventions can have limited usefulness due to the potential for methodological confounding, particularly for those decision contexts where strategies involving multiple interventions are required.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To introduce readers to different approaches of priority-setting, with a focus on economics-based examples of priority-setting in mental health.
  
  
  METHODS
  A selective review of the priority-setting literature, with particular attention given to the mental health context and economics-based approaches.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Six priority-setting approaches in mental health are described and assessed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Priority-setting approaches that incorporate methodological rigour, due process for involving stakeholders and broad-based notions of "benefit", are likely to be of most use to mental healthcare decision-makers. Challenges, both in relation to data bases and method remain, but are within the capacity of the mental health research community to resolve.
authors: Deakin Health Economics, Population Health Strategic Research Cluster, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. cathy.mihalopoulos@deakin.edu.au
authors: Cathrine
authors: C
authors: Mihalopoulos
authors: Rob
authors: R
authors: Carter
authors: Jane
authors: J
authors: Pirkis
authors: Theo
authors: T
authors: Vos
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000191:economics; D005060:Europe; D006292:Health Priorities / Q000191:economics* / Q000458:organization & administration*; D006801:Humans; D038622:Internationality; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000191:economics* / Q000628:therapy; D008605:Mental Health Services / Q000191:economics* / Q000458:organization & administration*; D009922:Oregon; D013021:South Australia; D014481:United States; D014944:World Health Organization