Examining how well economic evaluations capture the value of mental health.

IF 30.8 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Lancet Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00436-4
James Lathe, Richard J Silverwood, Alun D Hughes, Praveetha Patalay
{"title":"Examining how well economic evaluations capture the value of mental health.","authors":"James Lathe, Richard J Silverwood, Alun D Hughes, Praveetha Patalay","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00436-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health economics evidence informs health-care decision making, but the field has historically paid insufficient attention to mental health. Economic evaluations in health should define an appropriate scope for benefits and costs and how to value them. This Health Policy provides an overview of these processes and considers to what extent they capture the value of mental health. We suggest that although current practices are both transparent and justifiable, they have distinct limitations from the perspective of mental health. Most social value judgements, such as the exclusion of interindividual outcomes and intersectoral costs, diminish the value of improving mental health, and this reduction in value might be disproportionate compared with other types of health. Economic analyses might have disadvantaged interventions that improve mental health compared with physical health, but research is required to test the size of such differential effects and any subsequent effect on decision-making systems such as health technology assessment systems. Collaboration between health economics and the mental health sciences is crucial for achieving mental-physical health parity in evaluative frameworks and, ultimately, improving population mental health.</p>","PeriodicalId":48784,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":30.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00436-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health economics evidence informs health-care decision making, but the field has historically paid insufficient attention to mental health. Economic evaluations in health should define an appropriate scope for benefits and costs and how to value them. This Health Policy provides an overview of these processes and considers to what extent they capture the value of mental health. We suggest that although current practices are both transparent and justifiable, they have distinct limitations from the perspective of mental health. Most social value judgements, such as the exclusion of interindividual outcomes and intersectoral costs, diminish the value of improving mental health, and this reduction in value might be disproportionate compared with other types of health. Economic analyses might have disadvantaged interventions that improve mental health compared with physical health, but research is required to test the size of such differential effects and any subsequent effect on decision-making systems such as health technology assessment systems. Collaboration between health economics and the mental health sciences is crucial for achieving mental-physical health parity in evaluative frameworks and, ultimately, improving population mental health.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究经济评价如何体现心理健康的价值。
卫生经济学证据为医疗决策提供了信息,但该领域历来对心理健康关注不够。卫生领域的经济评估应界定收益和成本的适当范围,以及如何对其进行估值。本《健康政策》概述了这些过程,并考虑了它们在多大程度上体现了心理健康的价值。我们认为,尽管目前的做法既透明又合理,但从心理健康的角度来看,它们有明显的局限性。大多数社会价值判断,如排除个体间的结果和部门间的成本,都会降低改善心理健康的价值,与其他类型的健康相比,这种价值的降低可能不成比例。与身体健康相比,经济分析可能会使改善心理健康的干预措施处于不利地位,但还需要进行研究,以检验这种差异效应的大小以及随后对决策系统(如卫生技术评估系统)产生的任何影响。健康经济学与心理健康科学之间的合作对于在评估框架中实现心理与生理健康的平等以及最终改善人口心理健康至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Lancet Psychiatry
Lancet Psychiatry PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
58.30
自引率
0.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Lancet Psychiatry is a globally renowned and trusted resource for groundbreaking research in the field of psychiatry. We specialize in publishing original studies that contribute to transforming and shedding light on important aspects of psychiatric practice. Our comprehensive coverage extends to diverse topics including psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, and psychosocial approaches that address psychiatric disorders throughout the lifespan. We aim to channel innovative treatments and examine the biological research that forms the foundation of such advancements. Our journal also explores novel service delivery methods and promotes fresh perspectives on mental illness, emphasizing the significant contributions of social psychiatry.
期刊最新文献
Competency-based training and supervision: development of the WHO-UNICEF Ensuring Quality in Psychosocial and Mental Health Care (EQUIP) initiative. Antipsychotic exposure and infection risk in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Danish nationwide registry study. Antipsychotics and severity of infections: correlation or causation? COVID-19 and mental health consequences: moving forward. Psychotropic drug prescribing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among people with depressive and anxiety disorders: a multinational network study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1