Dataset Information

An economic evaluation of a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service: a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines and policies direct community mental health services to provide preventive care to address chronic disease risks, however, such care is infrequently provided in routine consultations. An alternative model of care is to appoint a clinician to the dedicated role of offering and providing preventive care in an additional consultation: the 'specialist clinician' model. Economic evaluations of models of care are needed to determine the cost of adhering to guidelines and policies, and to inform pragmatic service delivery decisions. This study is an economic evaluation of the specialist clinician model; designed to achieve policy concordant preventive care delivery. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of the incremental costs, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of a 'specialist preventive care clinician' (an occupational therapist) was conducted in a randomised controlled trial, where participants were randomised to receive usual care; or usual care plus the offer of an additional preventive care consultation with the specialist clinician. The study outcome was client acceptance of referrals to two free telephone-based chronic disease prevention services. This is a key care delivery outcome mandated by the local health district policy of the service. The base case analysis assumed the mental health service cost perspective. A budget impact analysis determined the annual budget required to implement the model of care for all clients of the community mental health service over 5 years. RESULTS:There was a significantly greater increase from baseline to follow-up in the proportion of intervention participants accepting referrals to both telephone services, compared to usual care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $347 per additional acceptance of a referral (CI: $263-$494). The annual budget required to implement the model of care for all prospective clients was projected to be $711,446 over 5-years; resulting in 2616 accepted referrals. CONCLUSIONS:The evaluation provides key information regarding the costs for the mental health service to adhere to policy targets, indicating the model of care involved a low per client cost whilst increasing key preventive care delivery outcomes. Additional modelling is required to further explore its economic benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ACTRN12616001519448. Registered 3 November 2016, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371709.

SUBMITTER: Fehily C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7212584 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An economic evaluation of a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service: a randomised controlled trial.

Fehily Caitlin C Ling Rod R Searles Andrew A Bartlem Kate K Wiggers John J Hodder Rebecca R Wilson Andrew A Colyvas Kim K Bowman Jenny J

BMC health services research 20200511 1

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical practice guidelines and policies direct community mental health services to provide preventive care to address chronic disease risks, however, such care is infrequently provided in routine consultations. An alternative model of care is to appoint a clinician to the dedicated role of offering and providing preventive care in an additional consultation: the 'specialist clinician' model. Economic evaluations of models of care are needed to determine the cost of adhering ...[more]

PMID: 32393307

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveClinical practice guidelines recommend that community mental health services provide preventive care for clients' chronic disease risk behaviours; however, such care is often not routinely provided. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of offering clients an additional consultation with a specialist clinician embedded within a community mental health service, in increasing client-reported receipt of, and satisfaction with, preventive care.MethodA randomised controlled trial was undertaken in one Australian community mental health service. Participants (N = 811) were randomised to receive usual care (preventive care in routine consultations; n = 405) or usual care plus the offer of an additional consultation with a specialist preventive care clinician (n = 406). Blinded interviewers assessed at baseline and 1-month follow-up the client-reported receipt of preventive care (assessment, advice and referral) for four key risk behaviours individually (smoking, poor nutrition, alcohol overconsumption and physical inactivity) and all applicable risks combined, acceptance of referrals and satisfaction with preventive care received.ResultsAnalyses indicated significantly greater increases in 12 of the 18 preventive care delivery outcomes in the intervention compared to the usual care condition from baseline to follow-up, including assessment for all risks combined (risk ratio = 4.00; 95% confidence interval = [1.57, 10.22]), advice for all applicable risks combined (risk ratio = 2.40; 95% confidence interval = [1.89, 6.47]) and offer of referral to applicable telephone services combined (risk ratio = 20.13; 95% confidence interval = [2.56, 158.04]). For each component of care, there was a significant intervention effect for at least one of the individual risk behaviours. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with preventive care received, ranging from 77% (assessment) to 87% (referral), with no significant differences between conditions.ConclusionThe intervention had a significant effect on the provision of the majority of recommended elements of preventive care. Further research is needed to maximise its impact, including identifying strategies to increase client uptake.

Project description:BackgroundFor ethnic minority communities in the UK, the COVID-19 pandemic amplified existing health inequalities and created other consequential disadvantages like increased vulnerability to COVID-19, higher rates of hospital admissions, increased mortality and poorer mental health outcomes. While longer-term impacts of COVID-19 are considered, it is crucial for NHS mental health services to understand the specific barriers and needs of ethnic minority communities to provide consistent and equitable access to mental health services. These aspects were the focus of a service evaluation of a Sussex-wide mental health service conducted in co-production with experts-by-experience, public members, health professionals and researchers from ethnic minority communities.MethodsCo-designed creative workshops (n = 13) and semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 13) were used to explore experiences of accessing specialist mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were: Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SPFT) service users recruited between October 2021 and January 2022; aged 16+; from ethnic minority community backgrounds. Data was analysed using Thematic Analysis.ResultsThe analysis yielded five overarching themes contextualising service users' experiences: (1) limited awareness of SPFT mental health services; (2) effects of COVID-19 in gaining access to SPFT; (3) SPFT reaching out to ethnic minorities; (4) being supported, 4a) hiding my mental health status from friends and families, 4b) lack of ethnic diversity in services, and 4c) better provision of information and support services, (5) relationship between childhood experiences and current mental health. These findings led to seven key recommendations for future service developments within SPFT.ConclusionsAlthough this evaluation was set in the context of COVID-19, findings have highlighted specific mental health service needs for ethnic minorities that are applicable beyond the confines of the pandemic. Many benefited from online sessions seen as more inclusive. Mental health advocates, outreach and joint working with communities could help further reduce stigmatising attitudes and improve engagement with mental health services. Improved service awareness of the impact of childhood or historical traumas experienced by ethnic minority communities on current mental health, the role of cultural awareness training and availability of culturally adapted therapies is also needed. Many service improvement recommendations provided could impact all service users.

Project description:BackgroundPerinatal depression affects an estimated 1 in 5 women in North America during the perinatal period, with annualized lifetime costs estimated at $20.6 billion CAD in Canada and over $45.9 billion USD in the US. Access to psychological treatments remains limited for most perinatal women suffering from depression and anxiety. Some barriers to effective care can be addressed through task-sharing to non-specialist providers and through telemedicine platforms. The cost-effectiveness of these strategies compared to traditional specialist and in-person models remains unknown. This protocol describes an economic evaluation of non-specialist providers and telemedicine, in comparison to specialist providers and in-person sessions within the ongoing Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT) trial.MethodsThe economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside the SUMMIT trial. SUMMIT is a pragmatic, randomized, non-inferiority trial across five North American study sites (N = 1,226) of the comparable effectiveness of two types of providers (specialist vs. non-specialist) and delivery modes (telemedicine vs. in-person) of a behavioural activation treatment for perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. The primary economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis. The outcome will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which will be expressed as the additional cost required to achieve an additional quality-adjusted life-year, as assessed by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level instrument. A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis will use participants' depressive symptom scores. A micro-costing analysis will be conducted to estimate the resources/costs required to implement and sustain the interventions; healthcare resource utilization will be captured via self-report. Data will be pooled and analysed using uniform price and utility weights to determine cost-utility across all trial sites. Secondary country-specific cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses will also be completed. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted, and cost-effectiveness acceptability-curves will be generated, in all instances.DiscussionResults of this study are expected to inform key decisions related to dissemination and scale up of evidence-based psychological interventions in Canada, the US, and possibly worldwide. There is potential impact on real-world practice by informing decision makers of the long-term savings to the larger healthcare setting in services to support perinatal women with common mental health conditions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo simulate the impact on population mental health indicators of allowing people to book some Medicare-subsidised sessions with psychologists and other mental health care professionals without a referral (direct access), and of increasing the annual growth rate in specialist mental health care capacity (consultations).DesignSystem dynamics model, calibrated using historical time series data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, HealthStats NSW, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and the Australian Early Development Census. Parameter values that could not be derived from these sources were estimated by constrained optimisation.SettingNew South Wales, 1 September 2021 - 1 September 2028.Main outcome measuresProjected mental health-related emergency department presentations, hospitalisations following self-harm, and deaths by suicide, both overall and for people aged 15-24 years.ResultsDirect access (for 10-50% of people requiring specialist mental health care) would lead to increases in the numbers of mental health-related emergency department presentations (0.33-1.68% of baseline), hospitalisations with self-harm (0.16-0.77%), and deaths by suicide (0.19-0.90%), as waiting times for consultations would increase, leading to disengagement and consequently to increases in adverse outcomes. Increasing the annual rate of growth of mental health service capacity (two- to fivefold) would reduce the frequency of all three outcomes; combining direct access to a proportion of services with increased growth in capacity achieved substantially greater gains than an increase in service capacity alone. A fivefold increase in the annual service growth rate would increase capacity by 71.6% by the end of 2028, compared with current projections; combined with direct access to 50% of mental health consultations, 26 616 emergency department presentations (3.6%), 1199 hospitalisations following self-harm (1.9%), and 158 deaths by suicide (2.1%) could be averted.ConclusionThe optimal combination of increased service capacity growth (fivefold) and direct access (50% of consultations) would have double the impact over seven years of accelerated capacity growth alone. Our model highlights the risks of implementing individual reforms without knowledge of their overall system effect.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with a mental health condition are more likely to engage in risk behaviours compared to people without. Delivery of preventive care to improve such behaviours is recommended for community mental health services, but inadequately implemented. This study assessed the effectiveness of an implementation support package on clinicians' delivery of preventive care (assessment, advice, referral) for four risk behaviours (tobacco smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, inadequate fruit and vegetable intake) compared to no implementation support. The participatory approach to developing the support package, and fidelity of the implementation strategies, are also described.MethodsA non-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 2019-2020 with two community mental health services (control and target) in one health district in New South Wales, Australia. A 4-month support package consisting of multiple implementation strategies was delivered to one site following a two-phase participatory design process. Five implementation strategies were proposed to service managers by researchers. After consultation with managers and clinicians, the final implementation support package included four strategies: training and education materials, enabling resources and prompts, client activation material, and audit and feedback. Client-reported receipt of the three elements of preventive care for the four risk behaviours was collected from a cross-sectional sample of clients who had recently attended the service at baseline (6 months) and follow-up (5 months). Logistic regression models examined change in receipt of preventive care to assess effectiveness.ResultsA total of 860 client surveys were completed (control baseline n = 168; target baseline n = 261; control follow-up n = 164; and target follow-up n = 267). Analyses revealed no significant differential changes in preventive care receipt between the target and control sites from baseline to follow-up, including across the four primary outcomes: assessed for all behaviours (OR = 1.19; 95% CI 0.55, 2.57; p = 0.65); advised for all relevant risk behaviours (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 0.39, 3.61; p = 0.77); referred for any relevant risk behaviour (OR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.40, 1.63; p = 0.55); and complete care (OR = 3.11; 95% CI 0.62, 15.63; p = 0.17). Fidelity of the implementation strategies was limited as one of the four strategies (audit and feedback) was not delivered, components of two strategies (enabling resources and prompts, and client activation material) were not delivered as intended, and one strategy (education and training) was delivered as intended although some components were offered late in the implementation period.ConclusionsThe implementation support package was ineffective at increasing preventive care delivery. Further investigation is required to determine optimal participatory design methods to develop effective implementation strategies, including those that support delivery of care in community mental health settings within the ongoing context of uncertain environmental challenges.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001379101.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary behavioural risks for the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in developed countries are tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity. Evidence, guidelines and policies support routine clinician delivery of care to prevent these risks within primary care settings. Despite the potential afforded by community health services for the delivery of such preventive care, the limited evidence available suggests it is provided at suboptimal levels. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic practice change intervention in increasing clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health services.Methods/designA multiple baseline study will be conducted involving all 56 community health facilities in a single health district in New South Wales, Australia. The facilities will be allocated to one of three administratively-defined groups. A 12 month practice change intervention will be implemented in all facilities in each group to facilitate clinician risk assessment of eligible clients, and clinician provision of brief advice and referral to those identified as being 'at risk'. The intervention will be implemented in a non-random sequence across the three facility groups. Repeated, cross-sectional measurement of clinician provision of preventive care for four individual risks (smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity) will occur continuously for all three facility groups for 54 months via telephone interviews. The interviews will be conducted with randomly selected clients who have visited a community health facility in the last two weeks. Data collection will commence 12 months prior to the implementation of the intervention in the first group, and continue for six months following the completion of the intervention in the last group. As a secondary source of data, telephone interviews will be undertaken prior to and following the intervention with randomly selected samples of clinicians from each facility group to assess the reported provision of preventive care, and the acceptability of the practice change intervention and implementation.DiscussionThe study will provide novel evidence regarding the ability to increase clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health facilities.Trial registrationAustralian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611001284954 UNIVERSAL TRIAL NUMBER (UTN): U1111-1126-3465.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Midhurst Macmillan Specialist Palliative Care at Home Service was founded in 2006 to improve community-based palliative care provision. Principal components include; early referral; home-based clinical interventions; close partnership working; and flexible teamwork. Following a successful introduction, the model was implemented in six further sites across England. This article reports a mixed methods evaluation of the implementation across these 'Innovation Centres'. The evaluation aimed to assess the process and impact on staff, patients and carers of providing Macmillan Specialist Care at Home services across the six sites. METHODS:The study was set within a Realist Evaluation framework and used a longitudinal, mixed methods research design. Data collection over 15 months (2014-2016) included: Quantitative outcome measures - Palliative Performance Scale [PPS] and Palliative Prognostic Index [PPI] (n =?2711); Integrated Palliative Outcome Scales [IPOS] (n =?1157); Carers Support Needs Assessment Tool [CSNAT] (n =?241); Views of Informal Carers -Evaluation of Services [VOICES-SF] (n =?102); a custom-designed Service Data Tool [SDT] that gathered prospective data from each site (n =?88). Qualitative data methods included: focus groups with project team and staff (n =?32 groups with n =?190 participants), and, volunteers (n =?6 groups with n?=?32 participants). Quantitative data were analysed using SPPS Vs. 21 and qualitative data was examined via thematic analysis. RESULTS:Comparison of findings across the six sites revealed the impact of their unique configurations on outcomes, compounded by variations in stage and mode of implementation. PPS, PPI and IPOS data revealed disparity in early referral criteria, complicated by contrasting interpretations of palliative care. The qualitative analysis, CSNAT and VOICES-SF data confirmed the value of the Macmillan model of care but uptake of specialist home-based clinical interventions was limited. The Macmillan brand engendered patient and carer confidence, bringing added value to existing services. Significant findings included better co-ordination of palliative care through project management and a single referral point and multi-disciplinary teamwork including leadership from consultants in palliative medicine, the role of health care assistants in rapid referral, and volunteer support. CONCLUSIONS:Macmillan Specialist Care at Home increases patient choice about place of death and enhances the quality of end of life experience. Clarification of key components is advocated to aid consistency of implementation across different sites and support future evaluative work.

Dataset Information

An economic evaluation of a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service: a randomised controlled trial.

Publications

An economic evaluation of a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service: a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets