I don’t think there is a claim that they are mental health interventions—the blue hue only denotes they were evaluated by HLI, probably for the sake of comparison with other interventions. For example, Fortify Health is also in there and I don’t think the authors are under the illusion that it’s a mental health intervention
Nitpick. I do not think the above is exactly supported by the graph with the cost-effectiveness comparison. According to this, only Friendship Bench (48.5 WELLBY/k$) is over 5 times more cost-effective than GiveDirectly, which corresponds to having a cost-effectiveness over 45.6 WELLBY/k$ (= (1 + 5)*7.6/10^3). There are 2 charities, Friendship Bench and StrongMinds (40.4 WELLBY/k$), which are more than 5 times as cost-effective as GiveDirectly, which corresponds to having a cost-effectiveness over 38.0 WELLBY/k$ (= 5*7.6/10^3), but they both deliver the same type of mental health intervention (“Task-shifted group psychotherapy”).
I don’t think there is a claim that they are mental health interventions—the blue hue only denotes they were evaluated by HLI, probably for the sake of comparison with other interventions. For example, Fortify Health is also in there and I don’t think the authors are under the illusion that it’s a mental health intervention
Hi Jamie. I agree.
Nitpick. I do not think the above is exactly supported by the graph with the cost-effectiveness comparison. According to this, only Friendship Bench (48.5 WELLBY/k$) is over 5 times more cost-effective than GiveDirectly, which corresponds to having a cost-effectiveness over 45.6 WELLBY/k$ (= (1 + 5)*7.6/10^3). There are 2 charities, Friendship Bench and StrongMinds (40.4 WELLBY/k$), which are more than 5 times as cost-effective as GiveDirectly, which corresponds to having a cost-effectiveness over 38.0 WELLBY/k$ (= 5*7.6/10^3), but they both deliver the same type of mental health intervention (“Task-shifted group
psychotherapy”).