7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring the identification, validation, and categorization of the cost and benefits of criminal justice in mental health: the PECUNIA project

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Mental health disorders and their treatments produce significant costs and benefits in both healthcare and non-healthcare sectors. The latter are often referred to as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Little is known about healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector and how to include these in health economics research.

          Objectives

          The triple aim of this study is (i) to identify healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector, (ii) to validate the list of healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector on a European level by sector-specific experts, and (iii) to classify the identified ICBs.

          Methods

          A scientific literature search in PubMed and an additional grey literature search, carried out in six European countries, were used to retrieve ICBs. In order to validate the international applicability of the ICBs, a survey was conducted with an international group of experts from the criminal justice sector. The list of criminal justice ICBs was categorized according to the PECUNIA conceptual framework.

          Results

          The full-text analysis of forty-five peer-reviewed journal articles and eleven grey literature sources resulted in a draft list of items. Input from the expert survey resulted in a final list of fourteen unique criminal justice ICBs, categorized according to the care atom.

          Conclusion

          This study laid further foundations for the inclusion of important societal costs of mental health-related interventions within the criminal justice sector. More research is needed to facilitate the further and increased inclusion of ICBs in health economics research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cost of schizophrenia in England.

          Despite the wide-ranging financial and social burdens associated with schizophrenia, there have been few cost-of-illness studies of this illness in the UK. To provide up-to-date, prevalence based estimate of all costs associated with schizophrenia for England. A bottom-up approach was adopted. Separate cost estimates were made for people living in private households, institutions, prisons and for those who are homeless. The costs included related to: health and social care, informal care, private expenditures, lost productivity, premature mortality, criminal justice services and other public expenditures such as those by the social security system. Data came from many sources, including the UK-SCAP (Schizophrenia Care and Assessment Program) survey, Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys, Department of Health and government publications. The estimated total societal cost of schizophrenia was 6.7 billion pounds in 2004/05. The direct cost of treatment and care that falls on the public purse was about 2 billion pounds; the burden of indirect costs to the society was huge, amounting to nearly 4.7 billion pounds. Cost of informal care and private expenditures borne by families was 615 million pounds. The cost of lost productivity due to unemployment, absence from work and premature mortality of patients was 3.4 billion pounds. The cost of lost productivity of carers was 32 million pounds. Estimated cost to the criminal justice system was about 1 million pounds. It is estimated that about 570 million pounds will be paid out in benefit payments and the cost of administration associated with this is about 14 million pounds. It is difficult to compare estimates from previous cost-of-illness studies due to differences in the methods, scope of analyses and the range of costs covered. Costs estimated in this study are detailed, cover a comprehensive list of relevant items and allow for different levels of disaggregation. The main limitation of the study is that data came from a variety of secondary sources and some official data publicly available was not the latest. Schizophrenia continues to be a high cost illness because of the range of health needs that people have. Despite the shifting balance of care away from hospital-based care, the health care costs of treating and supporting people with schizophrenia remain high. Decision-makers need to recognise the breadth of economic impacts, well beyond the health system as conventionally defined. For example, as nearly 80% of schizophrenia patients remain unemployed, the cost of lost productivity is especially large. Better measurement of criminal justice services costs, private expenditures borne by families and valuation of lost quality of life could improve the estimates further.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Inter-sectoral costs and benefits of mental health prevention: towards a new classification scheme.

            Many preventive interventions for mental disorders have costs and benefits that spill over to sectors outside the healthcare sector. Little is known about these "inter-sectoral costs and benefits" (ICBs) of prevention. However, to achieve an efficient allocation of scarce resources, insights on ICBs are indispensable. The main aim was to identify the ICBs related to the prevention of mental disorders and provide a sector-specific classification scheme for these ICBs. Using PubMed, a literature search was conducted for ICBs of mental disorders and related (psycho)social effects. A policy perspective was used to build the scheme's structure, which was adapted to the outcomes of the literature search. In order to validate the scheme's international applicability inside and outside the mental health domain, semi-structured interviews were conducted with (inter)national experts in the broad fields of health promotion and disease prevention. The searched-for items appeared in a total of 52 studies. The ICBs found were classified in one of four sectors: "Education", "Labor and Social Security", "Household and Leisure" or "Criminal Justice System". Psycho(social) effects were placed in a separate section under "Individual and Family". Based on interviews, the scheme remained unadjusted, apart from adding a population-based dimension. This is the first study which offers a sector-specific classification of ICBs. Given the explorative nature of the study, no guidelines on sector-specific classification of ICBs were available. Nevertheless, the classification scheme was acknowledged by an international audience and could therefore provide added value to researchers and policymakers in the field of mental health economics and prevention. The identification and classification of ICBs offers decision makers supporting information on how to optimally allocate scarce resources with respect to preventive interventions for mental disorders. By exploring a new area of research, which has remained largely unexplored until now, the current study has an added value as it may form the basis for the development of a tool which can be used to calculate the ICBs of specific mental health related preventive interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Health in All Policies: Prospects and Potentials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
                Int J Technol Assess Health Care
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                0266-4623
                1471-6348
                August 2020
                July 27 2020
                August 2020
                : 36
                : 4
                : 418-425
                Article
                10.1017/S0266462320000471
                77149554-d3eb-46bb-9a78-fd67c2e27f00
                © 2020

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article