Value-Based Commissioning of Mental Health Services in England: A Feasibility Study Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis.

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Pamela Gongora-Salazar, Rafael Perera, Apostolos Tsiachristas
{"title":"Value-Based Commissioning of Mental Health Services in England: A Feasibility Study Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis.","authors":"Pamela Gongora-Salazar, Rafael Perera, Apostolos Tsiachristas","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Improving mental health services through value-based investment is high priority in healthcare systems globally. However, there is lack of comprehensive and robust evidence on the value for money of these services that incorporates several value elements and public preferences. This study aims to demonstrate the application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the assessment of 2 early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services in England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An MCDA-based evaluation using patient records was conducted to evaluate the value-for-money of 2 EIP services in South-East England: Oxfordshire (EIP-Oxf) and Buckinghamshire (EIP-Bucks). The assessment considered 5 value elements: years of life, quality of life (time to relapse), patient experience (disengagement rates), health inequality (time-to-relapse disparity), and average annual cost. Performance on each value element was estimated using generalized linear models and propensity score matching on electronic health records of 1127 patients. Total MCDA scores integrated standardized predicted means with relative weights that were derived in a previous study. Robustness was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and service affordability was illustrated in conditional multiattribute acceptability curves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EIP-Oxf outperformed EIP-Bucks in overall scores (0.563 vs 0.552) and offered higher value per pound spend according to cost-per-value ratios (£10 438 per unit of value vs £12 655). Results were driven by lower annual cost per patient and health inequality in EIP-Oxf.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MCDA can facilitate value-for-money assessments of mental health services, addressing gaps in comprehensive rationing frameworks. This approach provides a systematic, evidence-driven method for local decision making, with potential for broader healthcare applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Improving mental health services through value-based investment is high priority in healthcare systems globally. However, there is lack of comprehensive and robust evidence on the value for money of these services that incorporates several value elements and public preferences. This study aims to demonstrate the application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the assessment of 2 early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services in England.

Methods: An MCDA-based evaluation using patient records was conducted to evaluate the value-for-money of 2 EIP services in South-East England: Oxfordshire (EIP-Oxf) and Buckinghamshire (EIP-Bucks). The assessment considered 5 value elements: years of life, quality of life (time to relapse), patient experience (disengagement rates), health inequality (time-to-relapse disparity), and average annual cost. Performance on each value element was estimated using generalized linear models and propensity score matching on electronic health records of 1127 patients. Total MCDA scores integrated standardized predicted means with relative weights that were derived in a previous study. Robustness was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and service affordability was illustrated in conditional multiattribute acceptability curves.

Results: EIP-Oxf outperformed EIP-Bucks in overall scores (0.563 vs 0.552) and offered higher value per pound spend according to cost-per-value ratios (£10 438 per unit of value vs £12 655). Results were driven by lower annual cost per patient and health inequality in EIP-Oxf.

Conclusions: MCDA can facilitate value-for-money assessments of mental health services, addressing gaps in comprehensive rationing frameworks. This approach provides a systematic, evidence-driven method for local decision making, with potential for broader healthcare applications.

基于价值的心理健康服务在英格兰的委托:使用多标准决策分析的可行性研究。
目标:通过基于价值的投资改善精神卫生服务是全球卫生保健系统的高度优先事项。然而,缺乏全面和有力的证据,证明这些服务的物有所值,其中包括几个价值要素和公众偏好。本研究旨在展示多标准决策分析(MCDA)在英国两项精神病早期干预(EIP)服务评估中的应用。方法:使用患者记录进行mcda评估,以评估英格兰东南部两个EIP服务的物有所值:牛津郡(EIP- oxf)和白金汉郡(EIP- bucks)。评估考虑了五个价值要素:生命年数、生活质量(复发时间)、患者体验(脱离参与率)、健康不平等(复发时间差异)和平均年成本。使用广义线性模型和对1,127名患者的电子健康记录的倾向评分匹配来估计每个价值元素的表现。MCDA总分综合了标准化预测均值和先前研究中得出的相对权重。采用概率敏感性分析评估鲁棒性,并以条件多属性可接受性曲线说明服务可承受性。结果:EIP-Oxf在整体得分上优于EIP-Bucks (0.563 vs 0.552),并且根据成本价值比提供更高的每磅消费价值(每单位价值10,438英镑vs 12,655英镑)。结果是由于EIP-Oxf的每位患者较低的年度成本和健康不平等。结论:MCDA可以促进精神卫生服务的物有所值评估,解决综合配给框架中的差距。这种方法为当地决策提供了一种系统的、循证驱动的方法,具有更广泛的医疗保健应用潜力。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信