ArticleBJPsych open2026
Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in psychosis in Latin America: economic evaluation of Chilean services.
Article in BJPsych open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternational evidence suggests that Early Intervention for Psychosis (EIP) services are both effective and cost-effective. Such evidence, however, comes almost exclusively from high-income countries.
aimsOur aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of EIP services in a Latin American setting.
methodWe compared EIP services against community mental health teams (CMHT) from the Chilean health system perspective. We developed a six-state Markov model to estimate the costs, benefits (measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a 10-year time horizon. The model was populated with data from a Chilean EIP cohort, published literature and expert opinion. We characterised uncertainty through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and calculated the value of information to reduce such uncertainty.
resultsIn the base case analysis, EIP was cost-effective compared with CMHT, with an ICER of 5 550 044 Chilean pesos per QALY (USD 13 742 adjusted for purchasing power parity). Uncertainty analysis revealed an 80% probability of EIP services being the most cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one gross domestic product per capita (USD 15 923). Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were sensitive to parameters such as intervention effectiveness and cost, suggesting that a new trial might be worthwhile to reduce uncertainty.
conclusionsThis model suggests that implementing EIP services in Chile may cost more, but it is likely to be cost-effective. Nonetheless, more evidence about affordability, equity and broader perspectives is needed to improve the economic case of implementing EIP services in less-resourced settings, such as in Latin America.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.