Search

In the wake of the mental health crisis in children and adolescents, the coordination of education and mental health services has become a global priority. However, differing terminologies and classifications across sectors, hinder effective comparison. The classification in education focuses mainly on outputs like qualifications or throughputs like teaching programs. This proof-of-concept study tested the applicability of a standard classification of health services, the Description and Evaluation of Services and DirectoriEs (DESDE), to evaluate education services for mental health users in the context of Spain and The Netherlands. It was conducted alongside the PECUNIA project, that sought to develop methods for the assessment of mental health costs and outcomes in different sectors. The study followed an ontoterminology approach involving: 1) identification of services from a predefined list of 46 resource-use items, 2) disambiguation of identified services with the DESDE, and classifying them as accurate, ambiguous, vague or confuse; and 3) external validation by an expert panel. The analysis was conducted at the level of type of resource, target population and care provision. From the initial list, only ten of the resources could be categorized as services using DESDE, and not activities, interventions or professionals. Only four of them (8,65%) were accurate across all disambiguation categories. Experts were unaware of terminology problems in classification of service provision in the education sector. Classifications and glossaries can clarify service naming, description and costing allowing comparative effectiveness analysis and facilitating cross-sectoral planning. This should be grounded in common methodologies, tools, and units of analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A comprehensive, comparable assessment of the economic disease burden and the value of relevant care forms a major challenge in the case of mental diseases. This study aimed to inform the development of a resource use measurement (RUM) instrument and harmonized reference unit costs valid for multi-sectoral and multi-national cost assessments for mental health diseases as part of the European PECUNIA project. Methods: An iterative, multi-methods approach was applied. Systematic literature reviews appended with national grey literature searches in six European countries were conducted to generate preliminary, literature-based, international, mental health-related service and resource use lists for all investigated sectors in 2018. As part of a multi-national expert survey, these lists were reviewed by 18 Austrian sector-specific experts regarding the clarity, relevance, comprehensiveness and availability in the Austrian context. Results: Out of 295 items included in the preliminary, international, sector-specific lists (health and social care—201 items, criminal justice—35 items, education—39 items; patient, family and informal care—20 items), a total of 261 items and descriptions (88%) were considered clear by all experts. 42 items (14%) were considered not existing in Austria, and 111 items (38%) were prioritized regarding their relevance in the national context. Thirteen additional items (4%) were suggested to be added to accommodate for Austria-specific features of the individual sectors. Major typological difficulties based on item names were observed. Conclusions: The identified country-specific variations and general typological bias and their potential contributions to service and resource use cost variations across countries and sectors call for further systematic investigation. Next, PECUNIA will develop internationally harmonized and comparable definitions of the listed items and their units of analysis based on a new conceptual multi-sectoral costing framework. The developed lists will require consolidation and further prioritization for the development of a patient-reported RUM instrument and consequent reference unit cost valuation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]