To develop a consensus-based checklist that can be used as a minimum standard to appraise the comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This is important when, for instance, reviewing and assessing COI studies as part of a systematic review or when building an economic model.

The development process of the consensus-based checklist involved six steps: (i) a scoping review, (ii) an assessment and comparison of the different checklists and their questions, (iii) the development of a (preliminary) checklist, (iv) expert interviews, (v) the finalization of the checklist, and (vi) the development of guidance statements explaining each question.

The result was a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies, comprising seventeen main questions (and some additional subquestions) across three domains: (i) study characteristics; (ii) methodology and cost analysis; and (iii) results and reporting. Guidance statements were developed describing the purpose and meaning behind each question and listing examples of best practice. The following answer categories were suggested to be applied when answering the questions in the checklist: Yes, Partially, No, Not Applicable, or Unclear.

The consensus-based checklist for COI studies is a first step toward standardizing the critical appraisal of COI studies and is one that could be considered a minimum standard. The checklist can help to improve comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency in COI studies, to address heterogeneity, and to enable better comparability of methodological approaches across international studies.

This study explored experts’ views on the development of a proposed checklist for cost-of-illness (COI) studies. It also investigated experts’ perspectives on the use of COI studies and quality/critical appraisal tools used for COI studies as well as their experiences with the use of these tools.

Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with health economists and other experts working with COI studies and with experience of developing health economic guidelines or checklists. Participants were selected purposively using network and snowball sampling. A framework approach was applied for the thematic data analysis. Findings were reported narratively.

Twenty-one experts from eleven different countries were interviewed. COI studies were found to be relevant to estimate the overall burden of a disease, to draw attention to disease areas, to understand different cost components, to explain cost variability, to inform decision making, and to provide input for full economic evaluations. Experts reported a lack of a standardized critical appraisal tool for COI studies. Their experience related predominantly to guidelines and checklists designed for full economic evaluations to review and assess COI studies. The following themes emerged when discussing the checklist: (i) the need for a critical appraisal tool, (ii) format and practicality, (iii) assessing the questions, (iv) addressing subjectivity, and (v) guidance requirements.

The interviews provided relevant input for the development of a checklist for COI studies that could be used as a minimum standard and for international application. The interviews confirmed the important need for a checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mental health problems can lead to costs and benefits in other sectors (e.g. in the education sector) in addition to the healthcare sector. These related costs and benefits are known as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Although some ICBs within the education sector have been identified previously, little is known about their extensiveness and transferability, which is crucial for their inclusion in health economics research.

The aim of this study was to identify ICBs in the education sector, to validate the list of ICBs in a broader European context, and to categorize the ICBs using mental health as a case study.

Previously identified ICBs in the education sector were used as a basis for this study. Additional ICBs were extracted from peer-reviewed literature in PubMed and grey literature from six European countries. A comprehensive list of unique items was developed based on the identified ICBs. The list was validated by surveying an international group of educational experts. The survey results were used to finalize the list, which was categorized according to the care atom.

Additional ICBs in the education sector were retrieved from ninety-six sources. Fourteen experts from six European countries assessed the list for completeness, clarity, and relevance. The final list contained twenty-four ICBs categorized into input, throughput, and output.

By providing a comprehensive list of ICBs in the education sector, this study laid further foundations for the inclusion of important societal costs in health economics research in the broader European context.

The burden of mental health disorders has a wide societal impact affecting primarily individuals and their significant others. Mental health interventions produce costs and benefits in the health care sector but can also lead to costs and benefits in non-healthcare sectors, also known as inter-sectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). The aim of this study was to develop an internationally applicable list of ICBs in the educational sector resulting from mental health interventions and to facilitate the inclusion of ICBs in economic evaluations across the European Union (EU) by prioritizing important ICBs.

Some ICBs of mental health interventions were identified in earlier research, which were used as a basis for this study. Additional data was collected via a systematic literature search of PubMed and a grey literature search carried out in six EU countries. In order to validate the international applicability of the list and prioritize the ICBs, a survey was conducted with the international group of experts from the educational sector. The outcomes of the expert survey were used to create the condensed list containing the most important ICBs.

The literature search allowed identifying additional ICBs and creating a comprehensive list of items. In order to improve its usability, a multi-dimensional list was constructed distinguishing between tangible (i.e. special education) and intangible items (i.e. cognitive deficits). Based on the expert survey, the international applicability of the list was validated and the most important ICBs from the economic perspective were determined.

Mental health interventions can affect a large number of educational facilities. The list of ICBs developed in this study could be used to select relevant educational facilities for economic evaluations of specific mental health disorders. Further research is needed to define, measure, and valuate the identified ICBs in order to facilitate the practical application of the list in economic evaluations.

Resource use measurement is known to be a challenging and time-consuming, but essential step in economic evaluations of health care interventions. Measuring true quantities of resources utilized is of major importance for generating valid costing estimates. As consequence of the absence of a gold standard and of acknowledged guidelines, the choice of a measurement method is often based on practicality instead of methodological evidence. An overview of resource use measurement issues is currently lacking. Such overview could enhance clearance in the quality of resource use measurement methods in economic evaluations and may facilitate to opt for evidence based measurement methods in the future. This study aims to provide an overview of methodological evidence regarding resource use measurement issues in economic evaluations.

Literature was searched by three different methods. First, a search strategy was used in six different databases. Second, the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement (DIRUM) was hand-searched. Third, experts from six different European Union countries within the field of health economics were asked to provide relevant studies. Data was analyzed according to the Resource Use Measurement Issues (RUMI-) framework, which was developed for this study.

Of the 3,478 articles provided in the initial search, 77 were fully analyzed. An overview with evidence is provided for every resource use measurement issue. Most research focused around the issue ‘how to measure’, in particular the effect of self-reported data versus administrative data. In contrast, little to no research has been done on issues ‘what to measure’ and ‘for which purpose to measure’.

Results of this study provide insight in the effect of a chosen measurement method. The results stress the importance of measuring the true quantities of resources utilized for generating valid costing estimates. Furthermore, this article highlights the lack of evidence in appropriate resource use measurement methods.

Mental health disorders and their treatments produce costs and benefits in both healthcare and non-healthcare sectors. The latter one is often referred to as inter-sectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Limited research is available on the inclusion of these inter-sectoral costs and benefits (ICBs) in economic evaluations. In this study, we focus on the identification and classification of ICBs of mental health-related interventions within the criminal justice sector in a broader European context. This study was conducted as part of the PECUNIA-project, which aims to develop new standardized, harmonized and validated methods and tools for the assessment of costs and outcomes in European healthcare systems. The aim of the study is to further conceptualize an internationally applicable list of ICBs of mental health-related interventions in the criminal justice sector. Additionally, we aim to facilitate the inclusion of ICBs in economic evaluations across EU by prioritizing important ICBs.

Data was collected via a systematic literature search on PubMed and PsychINFO. Additionally, a grey literature search was carried out in six European countries. In order to validate the international applicability of the list and prioritize the ICBs, a survey was conducted with an international group of experts from the criminal justice sector.

The literature search identified ICBs and resulted in a comprehensive list of items. A multi-dimensional list was constructed, distinguishing between costs as consequence of crime, and costs in response to crime. Based on the expert survey, the international applicability of the list was validated and the most important ICBs from the economic perspective were identified.

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 greater use of ICBs in economic evaluations.

Many health care interventions have costs and benefits that spill over to sectors outside the healthcare sector. Little is known about these inter-sectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). However, to achieve an efficient allocation of scarce resources, insights on ICBs are indispensable. The main objective of this study was to identify the ICBs related to health care and provide a sector-specific classification scheme for these ICBs. For this sector-specific classification scheme mental disorders were taken as an example, as we expect that this is the sector with the most 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 care.

The searched-for items appeared in a total of fifty-two 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 health technology assessment. The identification and classification of ICBs offers decision makers supporting information on how to optimally allocate scarce resources. 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 health care interventions.

There is a lack of knowledge about methods for valuing health intervention-related costs and monetary benefits in the education and criminal justice sectors, also known as ‘inter-sectoral costs and benefits’ (ICBs). The objective of this study was to develop methods for obtaining unit prices for the valuation of ICBs.

By conducting an exploratory literature study and expert interviews, several generic methods were developed. The methods' feasibility was assessed through application in the Netherlands. Results were validated in an expert meeting, which was attended by policy makers, public health experts, health economists and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts, and discussed at several international conferences and symposia.

The study resulted in four methods, including the opportunity cost method and valuation using available unit prices, self-constructed unit prices or hourly labor costs.

The methods developed can be used internationally and are valuable for the broad international field of HTA.