Search

Objectives: Mental and behavioural disorders (MBDs) and interventions targeting MBDs lead to costs and cost savings in the healthcare sector, but also in other sectors. The latter are referred to as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Interventions targeting MBDs often lead to ICBs in the education and criminal justice sectors, yet these are rarely included in economic evaluations. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes held by health economists and health technology assessment experts towards education and criminal justice ICBs in economic evaluations and to quantify the relative importance of these ICBs in the context of MBDs., Methods: An online survey containing open-ended questions and two best-worst scaling object case studies was conducted in order to prioritise a list of 20 education ICBs and 20 criminal justice ICBs. Mean relative importance scores for each ICB were generated using hierarchical Bayes analysis., Results: Thirty-nine experts completed the survey. The majority of the respondents (68%) reported that ICBs were relevant, but only a few (32%) included them in economic evaluations. The most important education ICBs were "special education school attendance", "absenteeism from school", and "reduced school attainment". The most important criminal justice ICBs were "decreased chance of committing a crime as a consequence/effect of mental health programmes/interventions", "jail and prison expenditures", and "long-term pain and suffering of victims/victimisation"., Conclusions: This study identified the most important education and criminal justice ICBs for economic evaluations of interventions targeting MBDs and suggests that it could be relevant to include these ICBs in economic evaluations.

Background: The inclusion of indirect spillover costs and benefits that occur in non-healthcare sectors of society is necessary to make optimal societal decisions when assessing the cost effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Education costs and benefits are relevant in the disease area of mental and behavioral disorders, but their inclusion in economic evaluations is largely neglected due to lack of methodological knowledge., Aim of the Study: This study aims to explore, using a scoping review, the identification, measurement, and valuation methods used to assess the impact of mental and behavioural disorders on education costs and benefits., Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify articles that were set in the education sector and assessed education costs and benefits. An adapted 5-step approach was used: (i) initating a scoping review; (ii) identifying component studies; (iii) data extraction; (iv) reporting results; (v) discussion and interpretation of findings. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis per identification, measurement, and valuation method., Results: 177 component articles were identified in the scoping review that reported 61 mutually exclusive education costs and benefits. The nomenclature used to describe the costs and benefits was poorly defined, heterogeneous in nature and largely context dependent. This was also reflected in the diverse number of measurement and valuation methods found in the component articles., Discussion: This is the first study, which offers a classification of education costs and benefits and costing methods reported by studies set in the education sector. In conclusion, mental and behavioral disorders have a notable impact on a variety of different education costs and benefits., Implications for Health Policies: The classification provided in the current study gives an indication of the wide-spread impact of mental and behavioral disorders on the education sector. Hence, the inclusion of relevant education costs and benefits in economic evaluations for mental and behavioral disorders is necessary to make optimal societal decisions., Implications for Further Research: By exploring a new area of research from a sector-specific perspective, the current study adds to the existing intersectoral cost and benefit literature base. Future research should focus on standardizing costing methods in pharmacoeconomic guidelines and assessing the relative importance of individual education costs and benefits in economic evaluations for specific interventions and diseases.