Introduction Globally, families with children with developmental disabilities (DDs) may experience several challenges, including social isolation, stigma, and poverty especially in low-income settings in Africa. Most children with DDs in Africa remain unidentified and receive no formal support. Caregiver interventions focusing on education and training for carers of children with DDs have been shown to be adaptable and low intensity in implementation. However, economic evaluation evidence on caregiver interventions for DD, which is important for effective resource allocation, is limited. This review aimed to describe the nature of evidence available and methodological aspects of economic evaluations for caregiver interventions for DDs. Methods This scoping review employed the Arksey and O’Malley framework and aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Seven electronic databases, grey literature and cited references were systematically searched to identify eligible studies on economic evaluations of caregiver interventions for children with DDs published in 1993-2023. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Drummond checklist. Data were systematically extracted, tabulated, and qualitatively synthesised using inductive thematic analysis. Results The searches yielded 7811 articles. Seventeen studies all in high-income countries met the inclusion criteria which focused on caregiver interventions for autism spectrum disorder (n=7), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n=6), disruptive behaviour and behaviour problems with ADHD (n=5), intellectual disabilities (n=1) and language delay (n=1). The most used economic evaluation approach was trial based models (n=14), followed by decision analytic models (n=5)). The methods were not explicitly stated in 1 study. Economic evaluation analyses included cost effectiveness (n=11), costing (n=3), cost utility (n=2), cost consequence (n=1) cost benefit (n=1), and combined analyses (n=2). Nine studies reported the interventions as cost effective, five studies reported the intervention to be cost saving, and one identified caregiver costs as a cost driver. The main identified methodological challenges were related to costing, outcome measurement in children and the appropriate time horizon for modelling. Conclusion Caregiver interventions demonstrate cost-effectiveness, with the available evidence supporting the adoption of the interventions evaluated. Caregiver interventions are a promising avenue to strengthen access and reduce costs associated with health services for children with DDs. Additionally, this review identified key methodological challenges and highlighted areas for further research to address these limitations. Prioritizing more economic evaluation studies in this area would inform decision-making on efficient resource allocation, promote inclusivity and equitable access to services for children with DDs.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This review was supported by funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR SPARK project No.200842) using UK aid from the UK Government. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This was a scoping review using secondary data. No ethical approval was required.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data has been included in the article and additional supporting information files.