Background: The importance of economic evaluation in decision making is growing with increasing budgetary pressures on health systems. Diverse economic evidence is available for a range of interventions across national contexts within Europe, but little attention has been given to identifying evidence gaps that, if filled, could contribute to more efficient allocation of resources. One objective of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation project is to determine the most important methodological evidence gaps for the ten highest burden conditions in the European Union (EU), and to suggest ways of filling these gaps.

Methods: The highest burden conditions in the EU by Disability Adjusted Life Years were determined using the Global Burden of Disease study. Clinical interventions were identified for each condition based on published guidelines, and economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE were mapped to each intervention. A panel of public health and health economics experts discussed the evidence during a workshop and identified evidence gaps.

Results: The literature analysis contributed to identifying cross-cutting methodological and technical issues, which were considered by the expert panel to derive methodological research priorities.

Conclusions: The panel suggests a research agenda for health economics which incorporates the use of real-world evidence in the assessment of new and existing interventions; increased understanding of cost-effectiveness according to patient characteristics beyond the “-omics” approach to inform both investment and disinvestment decisions; methods for assessment of complex interventions; improved cross-talk between economic evaluations from health and other sectors; early health technology assessment; and standardized, transferable approaches to economic modeling.

Background: Research has clearly established the efficacy of pharmacotherapy and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for depression. There is less literature addressing cessation of treatment, such as relapse during withdrawal from antidepressant medication. Aims: The current study examines the role of psychological constructs that may influence relapse or fear of relapse and lead to resumption of medication. This hypothesizes that during withdrawal individuals may misinterpret normal variations in mood and dysphoric or other symptoms as reduced levels of medication in their bodies in keeping with a simplistic rationale for antidepressants. Method: The study uses an intensive single case AB style design in three cases during the withdrawal process. All participants had been treated with CBT plus antidepressants and had previously attempted to withdraw from antidepressants. The first part of the study naturalistically tracks belief changes as medication decreases; the second examines changes in these if/when a CBT intervention is introduced due to relapse or potential near-relapse. Daily self-monitoring diaries were used to measure target variables, together with standardized questionnaires up to 6 months follow-up. Results: Changes in symptoms, appraisal of symptoms, and beliefs about medication changed throughout the study. All participants remained medication free at 6 months follow-up. Two cases received CBT intervention due to possible relapse; the third underwent an unproblematic withdrawal. Conclusions: Patterns of change are discussed in terms of current approaches to medication cessation and the role of CBT during withdrawal.