Autism has lifetime consequences, with potentially a range of impacts on the health, wellbeing, social integration and quality of life of individuals and families. Many of those impacts are economic. This study estimated the costs of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in the UK. Data on prevalence, level of intellectual disability and place of residence were combined with average annual costs of services and support, together with the opportunity costs of lost productivity. The costs of supporting children with ASDs were estimated to be pound 2.7 billion each year. For adults, these costs amount to pound 25 billion each year. The lifetime cost, after discounting, for someone with ASD and intellectual disability is estimated at approximately pound 1.23 million, and for someone with ASD without intellectual disability is approximately pound 0.80 million.
Objective To examine the costs and cost effectiveness of telehealth in addition to standard support and treatment, compared with standard support and treatment.Design Economic evaluation nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting Community based telehealth intervention in three local authority areas in England.Participants 3230 people with a long term condition (heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes) were recruited into the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial between May 2008 and December 2009. Of participants taking part in the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study examining acceptability, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, 845 were randomised to telehealth and 728 to usual care.Interventions Intervention participants received a package of telehealth equipment and monitoring services for 12 months, in addition to the standard health and social care services available in their area. Controls received usual health and social care.Main outcome measure Primary outcome for the cost effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
ResultsWe undertook net benefit analyses of costs and outcomes for 965 patients (534 receiving telehealth; 431 usual care). The adjusted mean difference in QALY gain between groups at 12 months was 0.012. Total health and social care costs (including direct costs of the intervention) for the three months before 12 month interview were £1390 (€1610; $2150) and £1596 for the usual care and telehealth groups, respectively. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves were generated to examine decision uncertainty in the analysis surrounding the value of
RESEARCHthe cost effectiveness threshold. The incremental cost per QALY of telehealth when added to usual care was £92 000. With this amount, the probability of cost effectiveness was low (11% at willingness to pay threshold of £30 000; >50% only if the threshold exceeded about £90 000). In sensitivity analyses, telehealth costs remained slightly (non-significantly) higher than usual care costs, even after assuming that equipment prices fell by 80% or telehealth services operated at maximum capacity. However, the most optimistic scenario (combining reduced equipment prices with maximum operating capacity) eliminated this group difference (cost effectiveness ratio £12 000 per QALY).
ConclusionsThe QALY gain by patients using telehealth in addition to usual care was similar to that by patients receiving usual care only, and total costs associated with the telehealth intervention were higher. Telehealth does not seem to be a cost effective addition to standard support and treatment.Trial registration ISRCTN43002091.
Both treatments appear to have value as first-line outpatient interventions for patients with broadly defined AN. Longer term outcomes remain to be evaluated.
Compared with family therapy, CBT guided self-care has the slight advantage of offering a more rapid reduction of bingeing, lower cost, and greater acceptability for adolescents with bulimia or eating disorder not otherwise specified.
Inpatient treatment is associated with substantive sustained health gain across a range of diagnoses. Lack of intensive outpatient-treatment alternatives limits any unqualified inference about causal effects, but the rigour of measurement here gives the strongest indication to date of the positive impact of admission for complex mental health problems in young people.
Chronic pain in adulthood is one of the most costly conditions in modern western society. However, very little is known about the costs of chronic pain in adolescence. This preliminary study explored methods for collecting economic-related data for this population and estimated the cost-of-illness of adolescent chronic pain in the United Kingdom. The client service receipt inventory was specifically adapted for use with parents of adolescent chronic pain patients to collect economic-related data (CSRI-Pain). This method was compared and discussed in relation to other widely used methods. The CSRI-Pain was sent to 52 families of adolescents with chronic pain to complete as a self-report retrospective questionnaire. These data were linked with unit costs to estimate the total care cost package for each family. The economic impact of adolescent chronic pain was found to be high. The mean cost per adolescent experiencing chronic pain was approximately 8,000 pounds per year, including direct and indirect costs. The adolescents attending a specialised pain management unit, who had predominantly non-inflammatory pain, accrued significantly higher costs, than those attending rheumatology outpatient clinics, who had mostly inflammatory diagnoses. Extrapolating the mean total cost to estimated UK prevalence data of adolescent chronic pain demonstrates a cost-of-illness to UK society of approximately 3,840 million pounds in one year. The implications of the study are discussed.
Background The social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities presents a major challenge to services. As part of a 12-year follow up of people resettled from long-stay hospitals, the size of 213 individuals' social networks and the types of social support they received were investigated, as viewed by people with intellectual disabilities themselves. The types of support received in four different kinds of community accommodation were compared. Method Individuals were interviewed and their social support networks mapped using a Social Network Guide developed for the study. Descriptive statistics were generated and comparisons made using generalized linear modelling. Results The sample comprised 117 men (average age 51 years) and 96 women (average age 56 years). All but seven were White British, 92% were single and they had in general, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. The average network size was 22 members (range 3-51). The mean density was 0.5. A quarter of all network members were other service users with intellectual disabilities and a further 43% were staff. Only a third of the members were unrelated to learning disability services.In general, the main providers of both emotional and practical support were staff, although these relationships were less likely to be described as reciprocal. Other people with intellectual disabilities were the second most frequent providers of all types of support. People in small group homes, hostels and supported accommodation were significantly more likely to report close and companiable relationships than those in residential and nursing homes, but they also reported a greater proportion of critical behaviour. Conclusions The social networks revealed in this study are considerably larger than those of previous studies which have relied on staff reports, but findings about the generally limited social integration of people with intellectual disabilities are similar. A clearer policy and practice focus on the desirability of a range of different social contexts from which to derive potentially supportive network members is required so that people do not remain segregated in one area of life. Some participants were able to provide membership category but not the type of support provided or interactional behaviours, hence the different totals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.