69 research outputs found

    Interpretation of ACE-Prevention cost-effectiveness results

    Full text link

    Cost-effectiveness of prevention of psychotic disorders

    Full text link

    Cost-effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions

    Full text link

    Is it cost-effective to prevent mental disorders?

    Full text link

    Building the capacity of family day care educators to promote children’s social and emotional wellbeing: Results of an exploratory cluster randomised-controlled trial

    Full text link
    © 2015 Early Childhood Australia Inc. All rights reserved. THIS PAPER PRESENTS THE results of an exploratory cluster randomised-controlled trial that was used to pilot Thrive, a capacity-building program for family day care (FDC) educators. Participants were educators and coordinators from one FDC service in Melbourne, Australia. Data collection consisted of a survey including information on costs, an in-home quality of care observation and process evaluation. Data was collected over 12 months (2011–2012), at baseline and one, six and 12 months post-intervention. Positive caregiver interaction scores increased over time for the intervention group: F (3, 51.69) = 3.08, p < 0.05, and detached interaction scores decreased over time: F (3, 51.19) = 2.78, p < 0.05. Educators’ knowledge and confidence in children’s social and emotional wellbeing showed no significant change. Thrive gives important information about the challenges FDC educators face and is relevant to implementing changes in their education and support. For a program like Thrive to be successful in engaging educators, a stronger framework for supporting additional learning activities at both the FDC organisational and scheme level is warranted

    Determinants of per diem Hospital Costs in Mental Health

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION:An understanding of differences in hospital costs between patient groups is relevant for the efficient organisation of inpatient care. The main aim of this study was to confirm the hypothesis that eight a priori identified cost drivers influence per diem hospital costs. A second aim was to explore further variables that might influence hospital costs. METHODS:The study included 667 inpatient episodes consecutively discharged in 2014 at the psychiatric hospital of the Medical Centre-University of Freiburg. Fifty-one patient characteristics were analysed. Per diem costs were calculated from the hospital perspective based on a detailed documentation of resource use. Mixed-effects maximum likelihood regression and an ensemble of conditional inference trees were used to analyse data. RESULTS:The study confirmed the a priori hypothesis that not being of middle age (33-64 years), danger to self, involuntary admission, problems in the activities of daily living, the presence of delusional symptoms, the presence of affective symptoms, short length of stay and the discharging ward affect per diem hospital costs. A patient classification system for prospective per diem payment was suggested with the highest per diem hospital costs in episodes having both delusional symptoms and involuntary admissions and the lowest hospital costs in episodes having neither delusional symptoms nor somatic comorbidities. CONCLUSION:Although reliable cost drivers were identified, idiosyncrasies of mental health care complicated the identification of clear and consistent differences in hospital costs between patient groups. Further research could greatly inform current discussions about inpatient mental health reimbursement, in particular with multicentre studies that might find algorithms to split patients in more resource-homogeneous groups

    Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse : the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT

    Get PDF
    Funding Information: Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding in Australia was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1095879). Funding Information: The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 13/154/04. The contractual start date was in April 2016. The draft report began editorial review in September 2019 and was accepted for publication in March 2020. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. Funding Information: Declared competing interests of authors: Andrew I Gumley reports personal fees from the University of Manchester, the University of Exeter and the British Association for Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP) (Accrington, UK), and other interests with NHS Education for Scotland outside the submitted work. John Ainsworth reports other interests with Affigo CIC (Manchester, UK) outside the submitted work. Sandra Bucci is a director of Affigo CIC, a not-for-profit social enterprise company spun out of the University of Manchester in December 2015 to enable access to social enterprise funding and to promote ClinTouch, a symptom-monitoring app, to the NHS and public sector. Andrew Briggs reports personal fees from Bayer (Leverkusen, Germany), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Kenilworth, NJ, USA), Janssen Pharmaceutica (Beerse, Belgium), Novartis (Basel, Switzerland), SWORD Health (Porto, Portugal), Amgen Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) and Daiichi Sankyo (Tokyo, Japan) outside the submitted work. John Farhall reports grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) during the conduct of the study and other interests with Melbourne Health (NorthWestern Mental Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia) outside the submitted work. ShĂŽn Lewis reports grants from the Medical Research Council, non-financial support from Affigo CIC and personal fees from XenZone plc (Manchester, UK) outside the submitted work. Cathy Mihalopoulos reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) during the conduct of the study. John Norrie reports grants from the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh during the conduct of the study and declares membership of the following NIHR boards: CPR Decision Making Committee (2016), HTA Commissioning Board (2010–16), HTA Commissioning Sub-Board (EOI) (2012–16), HTA Funding Boards Policy Group (2016), HTA General Board (2016–19), HTA Post-Board funding teleconference (2016–19), NIHR CTU Standing Advisory Committee (2017–present), NIHR HTA and EME Editorial Board (2014–19) and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel (2017–present). Paul French is a member of the HTA Mental Health Prioritisation Panel (2017–present). Chris Williams reports grants from NIHR during the conduct of the study (HTA 10/104/34 BEAT-IT: a randomised controlled trial comparing a behavioural activation treatment for depression in adults with learning disabilities with attention control; NIHR multicentre RCT of a group psychological intervention for postnatal depression in British mothers of South Asian Origin: RP-PG-0514-20012: Integrated therapist and online CBT for depression in primary care); other from Five Areas Ltd (Clydebank, UK) outside the submitted work; and that he has twice been president of the British Association for Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapies, the lead body for cognitive–bahavioural therapy in the UK. This body aims to advocate use of evidence-based delivery of cognitive–bahavioural therapy. Publisher Copyright: © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2022.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

    A controlled trial of implementing a complex mental health intervention for carers of vulnerable young people living in out-of-home care: the ripple project

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Out-of-home care (OoHC) refers to young people removed from their families by the state because of abuse, neglect or other adversities. Many of the young people experience poor mental health and social function before, during and after leaving care. Rigorously evaluated interventions are urgently required. This publication describes the protocol for the Ripple project and notes early findings from a controlled trial demonstrating the feasibility of the work. The Ripple project is implementing and evaluating a complex mental health intervention that aims to strengthen the therapeutic capacities of carers and case managers of young people (12-17 years) in OoHC. METHODS: The study is conducted in partnership with mental health, substance abuse and social services in Melbourne, with young people as participants. It has three parts: 1. Needs assessment and implementation of a complex mental health intervention; 2. A 3-year controlled trial of the mental health, social and economic outcomes; and 3. Nested process evaluation of the intervention. RESULTS: Early findings characterising the young people, their carers and case managers and implementing the intervention are available. The trial Wave 1 includes interviews with 176 young people, 52% of those eligible in the study population, 104 carers and 79 case managers. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing and researching an affordable service system intervention appears feasible and likely to be applicable in other places and countries. Success of the intervention will potentially contribute to reducing mental ill-health among these young people, including suicide attempts, self-harm and substance abuse, as well as reducing homelessness, social isolation and contact with the criminal justice system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000501549 . Retrospectively registered 19 May 2015
    • 

    corecore