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.

In September 2014, as part of a national initiative to increase access to liaison psychiatry services, the liaison psychiatry services at Bristol Royal Infirmary received new investment of £250 000 per annum, expanding its availability from 40 to 98 h per week. The long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, of patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm, is unknown.

To assess the long-term impact of the investment on patient care outcomes and costs, of patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm.

Monthly data for all self-harm emergency department attendances between 1 September 2011 and 30 September 2017 was modelled using Bayesian structural time series to estimate expected outcomes in the absence of expanded operating hours (the counterfactual). The difference between the observed and expected trends for each outcome were interpreted as the effects of the investment.

Over the 3 years after service expansion, the mean number of self-harm attendances increased 13%. Median waiting time from arrival to psychosocial assessment was 2 h shorter (18.6% decrease, 95% Bayesian credible interval (BCI) −30.2% to −2.8%), there were 45 more referrals to other agencies (86.1% increase, 95% BCI 60.6% to 110.9%) and a small increase in the number of psychosocial assessments (11.7% increase, 95% BCI −3.4% to 28.5%) per month. Monthly mean net hospital costs were £34 more per episode (5.3% increase, 95% BCI −11.6% to 25.5%).

Despite annual increases in emergency department attendances, investment was associated with reduced waiting times for psychosocial assessment and more referrals to other agencies, with only a small increase in cost per episode.

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.