{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022144522144522144, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.601769911504425, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Exploratory economic analyses of two primary care mental health projects: implications for sustainability

We evaluated an Internet‐based psychological intervention supported by either general practitioners or psychologists (Panic Online), and a Primary‐care Evidence‐based Psychological‐interventions (PEP) strategy which involves training GPs to deliver specific psychological interventions. Economic modelling suggests that Panic Online is cost‐effective when supported by either GPs or psychologists. Threshold analysis of the psychological training of GPs suggests that a modest effect size for clinical benefit would be sufficient to provide an acceptable cost‐effectiveness ratio. The sustainability of these approaches depends on a range of factors, including funding, workforce availability, and acceptability to consumers and health care providers.