Cost-effectiveness analysis needs to be considered when introducing new tools and treatments to clinical services. The number of new assessment tools in mental health has rapidly expanded, including suicide risk assessment. Such suicide-based assessments, when linked to preventative interventions, are integral to high-quality mental health care for people with severe mental illness (SMI). We examined the cost implications of implementing Oxford Mental Illness and Suicide (OxMIS), an evidence-based, scalable suicide risk assessment tool that provides probabilistic estimates of suicide risk over 12 months for people with SMI in England.

We developed a decision analytic model using secondary data to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of incorporating OxMIS into clinical decision-making in secondary care as compared to usual care. Cost-effectiveness was measured in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Uncertainty was addressed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Conducting suicide risk assessment with OxMIS was potentially cheaper than clinical risk assessment alone by £250 (95% confidence interval, −786;31) to £599 (−1,321;−156) (in 2020–2021 prices) per person with SMI and associated with a small increase in quality of life (0.01 [−0.03;0.05] to 0.01 QALY, [−0.04;0.07]). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of implementing OxMIS was cost saving. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 99.96% of 10,000 simulations remained cost saving.

Cost-effectiveness analysis can be conducted on risk prediction models. Implementing one such model that focuses on suicide risk in a high-risk population can lead to cost savings and improved health outcomes, especially if explicitly linked to preventative treatments.

Deterioration in general population mental health since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic has been reported, but the impact of the pandemic on people with severe mental illness (SMI) has received less attention.

To understand the impact of the early stages of the pandemic on the patients with SMI, in terms of provision of mental health care and patient outcomes.

We examined records of 34,446 patients with SMI in Oxford Health Foundation Trust between March 2016 and July 2020. We used interrupted time-series analysis to estimate the immediate and subsequent changes in weekly rates of the use of community mental health services, hospitalization, and patient outcomes (as measured by Health of the Nation Outcome Scales, or HoNOS, scores) during the weeks of lockdown between March 23, 2020 and July 3, 2020.

Mean total HoNOS scores for all patients deteriorated in the weeks subsequent to lockdown (0.060 per week; 95%CI: 0.033, 0.087). Scores for patients with a history of psychosis deteriorated immediately (0.63; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.0). There was an immediate decrease in weekly referrals to community and outpatient services (−196; 95%CI: −300, −91) and no immediate change in weekly inpatient admissions (−4.2; 95%CI: −9.9, 1.5) or weekly total contacts (−26; 95%CI: −475, 423).

Patients with SMI were negatively impacted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a history of psychosis experienced distinct and immediate impacts. During the same period, referrals to community and outpatient services fell with no consequent impact on inpatient admissions.

Guidance in England recommends psychosocial assessment when presenting to hospital following self-harm but adherence is variable. There is some evidence suggesting that psychosocial assessment is associated with lower risk of subsequent presentation to hospital for self-harm, but the potential cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment for hospital-presenting self-harm is unknown.

A three-state four-cycle Markov model was used to assess cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment after self-harm compared with no assessment over 2 years. Data on risk of subsequent self-harm and hospital costs of treating self-harm were drawn from the Multicentre Study of Self-Harm in England, while estimates of effectiveness of psychosocial assessment on risk of self-harm, quality of life, and other costs were drawn from literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained were estimated. Parameter uncertainty was addressed in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Cost per QALY gained from psychosocial assessment was £10,962 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £15,538–£9,219) from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective and £9,980 (95% UI £14,538–£6,938) from the societal perspective. Results were generally robust to changes in model assumptions. The probability of the ICER being below £20,000 per QALY gained was 78%, rising to 91% with a £30,000 threshold.

Psychosocial assessment as implemented in the English NHS is likely to be cost-effective. This evidence could support adherence to NICE guidelines. However, further evidence is needed about the precise impacts of psychosocial assessment on self-harm repetition and costs to individuals and their families beyond immediate hospital stay.

Healthcare decision makers require accurate long-term economic models to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new mental health interventions.

To assess the suitability of current patient-level economic models to estimate long-term economic outcomes in severe mental illness.

We undertook pre-specified systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to identify reviews and stand-alone publications of economic models of interventions for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder (PROSPERO: CRD42020158243). We screened paper titles and abstracts to identify unique patient-level economic models. We conducted a structured extraction of identified models, recording the presence of key predefined model features. Model quality and validation were appraised using the 2014 ISPOR and 2016 AdViSHE model checklists.

We identified 15 unique patient-level models for psychosis and major depressive disorder from 1481 non-duplicate records. Models addressed schizophrenia (n = 6), bipolar disorder (n = 2) and major depressive disorder (n = 7). The predominant model type was discrete event simulation (n = 9). Model complexity and incorporation of patient heterogeneity varied considerably, and only five models extrapolated costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Key model parameters were often based on low-quality evidence, and checklist quality assessment revealed weak model verification procedures.

Existing patient-level economic models of interventions for severe mental illness have considerable limitations. New modelling efforts must be supplemented by the generation of good-quality, contemporary evidence suitable for model building. Combined effort across the research community is required to build and validate economic extrapolation models suitable for accurately assessing the long-term value of new interventions from short-term clinical trial data.

The aim of this study was to estimate incidence of self-harm presentations to hospitals and their associated hospital costs across England.

We used individual patient data from the Multicentre Study of Self-harm in England of all self-harm presentations to the emergency departments of five general hospitals in Oxford, Manchester and Derby in 2013. We also obtained cost data for each self-harm presentation from the hospitals in Oxford and Derby, as well as population and geographical estimates from the Office for National Statistics. First, we estimated the rate of self-harm presentations by age and gender in the Multicentre Study and multiplied this with the respective populations to estimate the number of self-harm presentations by age and gender for each local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area in England. Second, we performed a regression analysis on the cost data from Oxford and Derby to predict the hospital costs of self-harm in Manchester by age, gender, receipt of psychosocial assessment, hospital admission and type of self-harm. Third, the mean hospital cost per age year and gender were combined with the respective number of self-harm presentations to estimate the total hospital costs for each CCG in England. Sensitivity analysis was performed to address uncertainty in the results due to the extrapolation of self-harm incidence and cost from the Multicentre Study to England.

There were 228 075 estimated self-harm presentations (61% were female) by 159 857 patients in 2013 in England. The largest proportions of self-harm presentations were in the age group 40–49 years (30%) for men and 19–29 years (28%) for women. Associated hospital costs were approximately £128.6 (95% CI 117.8−140.9) million in 2013. The estimated incidence of self-harm and associated hospital costs were lower in the majority of English coastal areas compared to inland regions but the highest costs were in Greater London. Costs were also higher in more socio-economically deprived areas of the country compared with areas that are more affluent. The sensitivity analyses provided similar results.

The results of this study highlight the extent, hospital costs and distribution of self-harm presentations to hospitals in England and identify potential sub-populations that might benefit from targeted actions to help prevent self-harm and assist those who have self-harmed. They can support national as well as local health stakeholders in allocating funds and prioritising interventions in areas with the greatest need for preventing and managing self-harm.

Sleep problems are pervasive in people with schizophrenia, but there are no clinical guidelines for their treatment. The Better Sleep Trial (BEST) concluded that suitably adapted cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is likely to be highly effective, although its cost-effectiveness is unknown.

To assess the potential cost-effectiveness of CBT for sleep disorders in patients with schizophrenia.

An economic evaluation of the BEST study with a 6-month time horizon was used to establish the cost-effectiveness of CBT plus usual care in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Uncertainty was displayed on cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. Value of information analysis was performed to estimate the benefits of obtaining further evidence.

On average, the treatment led to a 0.035 QALY gain (95% CI −0.016 to 0.084), and £1524 (95% CI −10 529 to 4736) and £1227 (95% CI −10 395 to 5361) lower costs from National Health Service and societal perspectives, respectively. The estimated value of collecting more information about the effects of the CBT on costs and QALYs was approximately £87 million.

CBT for insomnia in people with schizophrenia is effective and potentially cost-effective. A larger trial is needed to provide clear evidence about its cost-effectiveness.

Patients with schizophrenia have multiple complex health needs, as well as very high rates of depression, suicidal ideation and poor physical health. The results of this study showed that treating pervasive sleep problems in this patient group with cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is very likely to improve patient quality of life in the short term. Clinicians most commonly use hypnotic medication to treat sleeping disorders. This study indicates that CBT may be an effective and cost-effective intervention in this patient group. This alternative would also be aligned with patient preferences for psychological and behavioural-type therapy.

None.