Search

Health problems can lead to costs in the education sector. However, these costs are rarely incorporated in health economic evaluations due to the lack of reference unit costs (RUCs), cost per unit of service, of education services and of validated methods to obtain them. In this study, a standardized unit cost calculation tool developed in the PECUNIA project, the PECUNIA RUC Template for services, was applied to calculate the RUCs of selected education services in five European countries. The RUCs of special education services and of educational therapy were calculated using the information collected via an exploratory gray literature search and contact with service providers. The RUCs of special education services ranged from €55 to €189 per school day. The RUCs of educational therapy ranged from €6 to €25 per contact and from €5 to €35 per day. Variation was observed in the type of input data and measurement unit, among other. The tool helped reduce variability in the RUCs related to costing methodology and gain insights into other aspects that contribute to the variability (e.g. data availability). Further research and efforts to generate high quality input data are required to reduce the variability of the RUCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many countries have introduced school food standards to improve the dietary intakes of school-aged children. England has school food standards (SFS) legislation in place but little is known about how well secondary schools comply with this. We aimed to assess compliance with the SFS legislation in English secondary schools and explore the impact of the SFS on pupils' nutritional intake., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with English secondary schools from 2019 to 2022. We compared SFS compliance and pupil nutritional intake in schools mandated or not mandated to comply with the SFS legislation, and explored the association between school compliance and pupil nutritional intake. We assessed the percentage of SFS (%SFS) complied with by reviewing school food menus and observing food served in school canteens. We assessed pupil nutritional intake using a 24-hour dietary recall measure (Intake24) and estimated intakes of free sugar (primary outcome) and other nutrients/foods. We used adjusted multilevel models to compare pupil intakes in the SFS-mandated and SFS-non-mandated schools, and to explore the association between school SFS compliance and pupil intakes., Results: 36 schools (23 not mandated and 13 mandated to comply with the SFS) and 2,273 pupils participated. The median %SFS complied with was 63.9% (interquartile range 60.0-70.0%). This was similar for SFS-non-mandated (64.5%) and SFS-mandated schools (63.3%). Compliance was highest for standards applying to lunchtime (median = 81.3%) and lowest for those applying across the whole school day (median = 41.7%). It was also lower for standards restricting high fat, sugar and energy-dense items (median = 26.1%) than for standards aiming to increase dietary variety (median = 92.3%). Pupils from SFS-mandated schools had a lower mean lunchtime intake of free sugar (g) (adjusted mean difference: -2.78g; 95% CI: -4.66g to -0.90g). There were few significant associations between %SFS complied with and pupil nutritional intake., Conclusions: English secondary schools do not fully comply with SFS legislation regardless of whether they are mandated to comply. Schools and caterers may require monitoring and support to fully comply. There is little evidence that SFS compliance is associated with better pupil nutritional intake. Food environments outside of school also need to be considered., Study Registration: ISRCTN68757496 (17-10-2019)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Pokhilenko et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Measuring objective resource-use quantities is important for generating valid cost estimates in economic evaluations. In the absence of acknowledged guidelines, measurement methods are often chosen based on practicality rather than methodological evidence. Furthermore, few resource-use measurement (RUM) instruments focus on the measurement of resource use in multiple societal sectors and their development process is rarely described. Thorn and colleagues proposed a stepwise approach to the development of RUM instruments, which has been used for developing cost questionnaires for specific trials. However, it remains unclear how this approach can be translated into practice and whether it is applicable to the development of generic self-reported RUM instruments and instruments measuring resource use in multiple sectors. This study provides a detailed description of the practical application of this stepwise approach to the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument developed within the ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions (PECUNIA) project., Methods: For the development of the PECUNIA RUM, the methodological approach was based on best practice guidelines. The process included six steps, including the definition of the instrument attributes, identification of cost-driving elements in each sector, review of methodological literature and development of a harmonized cross-sectorial approach, development of questionnaire modules and their subsequent harmonization., Results: The selected development approach was, overall, applicable to the development of the PECUNIA RUM. However, due to the complexity of the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument, additional steps such as establishing a uniform methodological basis, harmonization of questionnaire modules and involvement of a broader range of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, sector-specific experts, health economists) were needed., Conclusion: This is the first study that transparently describes the development process of a generic multi-sectoral RUM instrument in health economics and provides insights into the methodological aspects and overall validity of its development process., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Worldwide, population obesity levels are at their highest recorded levels, having nearly tripled between 1975 and 2016. This leads to substantial pressure on health systems, a negative impact on economic development, and results in adverse physical and mental health outcomes. There are many economic reasons why reducing population obesity should be a priority, and global targets have been set with many governments pledging to reduce obesity levels by 2030. To achieve these targets, a 'system-wide' approach has been widely advocated in direct recognition of the wide-ranging complex interacting determinants of the disease. This system approach requires action at all levels, including at the local government level, to use all fiscal and non-fiscal levers to bring about local system change that promotes healthier population behaviours. Like many country contexts, in England, local resources for achieving this system change have been drastically reduced in recent years. Economic evaluation offers a formal explicit framework to support local decision making but, to date, there has been a disconnect between national guidance on cost-effectiveness and how that informs local action. A new Centre for Economics of Obesity has been purposively developed to work closely with local government to adapt methods to help achieve efficiency and equity gains. By working across six workstreams to begin with, this Centre will use economics to inform policy action on different but interrelated parts of the obesity system and act as a training hub for health economists working in obesity policy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: While the methods for conducting health economics research in general are improving, current guidelines provide limited guidance regarding resource use measurement (RUM). Consequently, a variety of methods exists, yet there is no overview of aspects to consider when deciding on the most appropriate RUM methodology. Therefore, this study aims to (1) identify and categorize existing knowledge regarding aspects of RUM, and (2) develop a framework that provides a comprehensive overview of methodological aspects regarding RUM., Methods: Relevant articles were identified by enrolling a search string in six databases and handsearching the DIRUM database. Included articles were descriptively reviewed and served as input for a comprehensive framework. Health economics experts were involved during the process to establish the framework's face validity., Results: Forty articles were included in the scoping review. The RUM framework consists of four methodological RUM domains: 'Whom to measure', addressing whom to ask and whom to measure; 'How to measure', addressing the different approaches of measurement; 'How often to measure', addressing recall period and measurement patterns; and 'Additional considerations', which covers additional aspects that are essential for further refining the methodologies for measurement. Evidence retrieved from the scoping review was categorized according to these domains., Conclusion: This study clustered the aspects of RUM methodology in health economics into a comprehensive framework. The results may guide health economists in their decision making regarding the selection of appropriate RUM methods and developing instruments for RUM. Furthermore, policy makers may use these findings to review study results from an evidence-based perspective., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Patients vary in their preferences regarding involvement in medical decision-making. Current research does not provide complete explanation for this observed variation. Patient involvement in medical decision-making has been found to be influenced by various mechanisms, one of which could be patients' trust in physicians. The aim of this study was to examine whether trust in physicians fosters or impairs patient involvement in medical decision-making. This study also aimed to determine to what extent the relationship between trust and preferences regarding decision-making roles was influenced by the sociodemographic characteristics of the patients. We hypothesised that trust can both foster and impair patient involvement in medical decision-making., Materials and Methods: A survey was sent out to members of the Nivel Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel in February 2016 (response rate = 47%, N = 703). The Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale was used to measure trust. Patient involvement was measured using two items based on the study published by Flynn and colleagues in 2006. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyse the relationship between trust and patient involvement., Results: We found a negative relationship between trust and patient involvement in medical decision-making in men. Women with high trust reported to be more involved in medical decision-making compared to men with high trust., Conclusion: The results suggest that trust impairs involvement in medical decision-making for men but not for women. Further research could provide a more comprehensive explanation of the variation in patient preferences regarding involvement in medical decision-making to further elucidate which underlying mechanisms could enhance patient participation., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

AbstractThe rapid spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic has affected societies worldwide, leading to excess mortality, long-lasting health consequences, strained healthcare systems, and additional strains and spillover effects on other sectors outside health (i.e., intersectoral costs and benefits). In this perspective piece, we demonstrate the broader societal impacts of COVID-19 on other sectors outside the health sector and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses. These broader impacts include, for instance, the effects on the labor market and productivity, education, criminal justice, housing, consumption, and environment. The current pandemic highlights the importance of adopting a societal perspective to consider these broader impacts of public health issues and interventions and only omit these where it can be clearly justified as appropriate to do so. Furthermore, we explain how the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated existing deep-rooted structural inequalities that contribute to the wider societal impacts of the pandemic.

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.

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.