Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:26:22.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mental health economics: current methodological issues

Part of: Special Articles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2011

P. McCrone
P. McCrone*
Affiliation:
Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK
*
*Address for correspondence: Professor P. McCrone, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Investment in innovative mental health care services requires the use of scarce resources that could be used in alternative ways. Economic evaluation is essential to ensure that such an investment is appropriately compared with investment elsewhere.

Method:

A non-systematic review of mental health evaluations identifies key methodological issues pertaining to economic studies.

Results:

Economic evaluations require the measurement and combination of costs and outcomes, and clarity about how this measurement is undertaken is required. Regarding costs, important considerations relate to the perspective to be taken (e.g., health service or societal), method of measurement (patient self-report or use of databases) and valuation (actual costs, fees or expenditure). Decision makers frequently need to compare evidence both within and between clinical areas and therefore there is a tension between the use of condition specific and generic outcome measures. Quality-adjusted life years are frequently used in economic evaluations, but their appropriateness in mental health care studies is still debated.

Conclusions:

Economic evaluations in the area of mental health care are increasing in number and it is essential that researchers continue to develop and improve methods used to conduct such studies.

Keywords

economicsQALYScostscost-effectiveness analysismental health services
Type
Special Article
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 239 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Janabi, H, Coast, J (2009). ICECAP-A: Developing a Measure of an Adult's Capabilities Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham: Birmingham. http://www.pro-newsletter.com/images/PDF_articles/icecap-a-final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Amaddeo, F, Beecham, J, Bonizzato, P, Fenyo, A, Knapp, M, Tansella, M (1997). The use of a case register to evaluate the costs of psychiatric care. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 95, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barton, GR, Hodgekins, J, Mugford, M, Jones, PB, Croudace, T, Fowler, D (2009). Measuring the benefits of treatment for psychosis: the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D. British Journal of Psychiatry 195, 170–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beecham, J, Knapp, M (2001). Costing psychiatric interventions. In Measuring Mental Health Needs (ed. Thornicroft, G), pp. 200–224. Gaskell: London.Google Scholar
Brazier, J (2010). Is the EQ–5D fit for purpose in mental health? British Journal of Psychiatry 197, 348–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, JE, Roberts, JF, Deverill, MD (2002). The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21, 271–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byford, S, Torgerson, DJ, Raftery, J (2000). Cost of illness studies. British Medical Journal 320, 1335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byford, S, Leese, M, Knapp, M, Seivewright, H, Cameron, S, Jones, V, Davidson, K, Tyrer, P (2007). Comparison of alternative methods of collection of service use data for the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Economics 16, 531–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calsyn, RJ, Allen, G, Morse, GA, Smith, R, Tempelhoff, B (1993). Can you trust self-report data provided by homeless mentally ill individuals? Evaluation Review 17, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, RW, Seybolt, DC, Lehman, A (2002). Reliable self-report of health service use by individuals with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 53, 879–881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, M, Mangalore, R, Simon, J (2004). The global costs of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 30, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, M, Windmeijer, F, Brown, J, Kontodimas, S, Tzivelekis, S, Haro, JM, Ratcliffe, M, Hong, J, Novick, D (2008). Cost-utility analysis of treatment with olanzapine compared with other antipsychotic treatments in patients with schizophrenia in the pan-European SOHO study. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koopmanschap, MA, Ineveld, BMV (1992). Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Social Science and Medicine 9, 1005–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmanschap, MA, van Exel, JN, van den Berg, B, Brouwer, WB (2008). An overview of methods and applications to value informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrone, P, Dhanasiri, S, Patel, A, Knapp, M, Lawton-Smith, S (2008). Paying the Price: the Cost of Mental Health Care in England to 2026. King's Fund: London.Google Scholar
McCrone, P, Patel, A, Knapp, M, Schene, A, Koeter, M, Amaddeo, F, Ruggeri, M, Giessler, A, Puschner, B, Thornicroft, G (2009). A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 12, 27–31.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE: London.Google Scholar
Patel, A, Rendi, A, Moran, P, Leese, M, Mann, A, Knapp, M (2005). A comparison of two methods of collecting economic data in primary care. Family Practice 22, 323–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabes-Figuera, R, Razzouk, D, McCrone, P (2010). Economics of bipolar disorder. In Bipolar Disorder: Clinical and Neurobiological Foundations (ed. Yatham, LN and Maj, M), pp. 90–95. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester.Google Scholar
Williams, A (1995). The Role of the EUROQOL Instrument in QALY Calculations. Centre for Health Economics, University of York: York.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (2008). Global Burden of Disease 2004 Update. World Health Organisation: Geneva.Google Scholar