The Cost-Effectiveness of Psychosocial Interventions Following Self-Harm in Australia.

Background: Psychosocial interventions following self-harm in adults, in particular cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), can be effective in lowering the risk of repeated self-harm. Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CBT for reducing repeated self-harm in the Australian context. Method: The current study adopted the accessing cost-effectiveness (ACE) approach using return-on-investment (ROI) analysis. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses (Sas) tested the robustness of the model outputs to changes in three assumptions: general practitioner referral pathway (SA1), private setting intervention delivery (SA2), and training costs (SA3). Results: The intervention produced cost savings of A$ 46M (95% UI -223.7 to 73.3) and A$ 18.3M (95% UI -86.2 to 24.6), subject to the effect of intervention lasting 2- or 1-year follow-up. The ROI ratio reduced to 5.22 in SA1 (95% UI -10.1 to 27.9), 2.5 in SA2 (95% UI -4.8 to 13.3), and 5.1 in SA3 (95% UI -9.8 to 27.8). Limitations: We assumed that the effectiveness would reduce 50% within 5 years in the base case, and we used Australian data and a partial social perspective. Conclusions: The current study demonstrated cost-effectiveness of CBT for adults who have self-harmed with the return-on-investment ratio of A$ 2.3 to $6.0 for every A$ 1 invested.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of brief aftercare interventions following hospital-treated self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Prior self-harm represents the most significant risk factor for future self-harm or suicide. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a theoretical brief aftercare intervention (involving brief follow-up contact, care coordination and safety planning), following a hospital-treated self-harm episode, for reducing repeated self-harm within the Australian context. METHOD: We employed economic modelling techniques to undertake: (a) a return-on-investment analysis, which compared the cost-savings generated by the intervention with the overall cost of implementing the intervention; and (b) a cost-utility analysis, which compared the net costs of the intervention with health outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We considered cost offsets associated with hospital admission for self-harm and the cost of suicide over a period of 10 years in the base case analysis. Uncertainty and one-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: The brief aftercare intervention resulted in net cost-savings of AUD$7.5 M (95% uncertainty interval: -56.2 M to 15.1 M) and was associated with a gain of 222 (95% uncertainty interval: 45 to 563) QALYs over a 10-year period. The estimated return-on-investment ratio for the intervention's modelled cost in relation to cost-savings was 1.58 (95% uncertainty interval: -0.17 to 5.33). Eighty-seven per cent of uncertainty iterations showed that the intervention could be considered cost-effective, either through cost-savings or with an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio of 50 000 per QALY gained. The results remained robust across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A theoretical brief aftercare intervention is highly likely to be cost-effective for preventing suicide and self-harm among individuals with a history of self-harm.

Active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide research: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The importance and value of involvement of people with lived experience of suicide has been recognized in suicide research and prevention. Nonetheless, clear guidance on research collaboration and co-production is lacking. This study aimed to address this gap by developing a set of guidelines on active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide studies., i.e., conducting research with or by people with lived experience, rather than to, about or for them. METHODS: The Delphi method was used to determine statements on best practice for the active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide research. Statements were compiled through a systematic search of the scientific and grey literature, and reviewing qualitative data from a recent related study conducted by the authors. Two expert panels: people with lived experience of suicide (n = 44) and suicide researchers (n = 29) rated statements over three rounds of an online survey. Statements endorsed by at least 80% of panellists of each panel were included in the guidelines. RESULTS: Panellists endorsed 96 out of 126 statements in 17 sections covering the full research cycle from deciding on the research question and securing funding, to conducting research and disseminating and implementing outcomes. Overall, there was a substantial level of agreement between the two panels regarding support from research institutions, collaboration and co-production, communication and shared decision making, conducting research, self-care, acknowledgment, and dissemination and implementation. However, panels also disagreed on specific statements regarding representativeness and diversity, managing expectations, time and budgeting, training, and self-disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified consensus recommendations on active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide research, including co-production. Support from research institutions and funders, and training on co-production for researchers and people with lived experience, are needed for successful implementation and uptake of the guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness of media reporting guidelines for the prevention of suicide.

INTRODUCTION: Media guidelines for the responsible reporting of suicide are a recognized universal suicide prevention intervention. While implemented in numerous countries, including Australia, little is known about whether they are cost-effective. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of Mindframe, the national initiative implementing media guidelines in Australia. METHOD: We conducted a modelled economic evaluation (5-year time-horizon) incorporating two types of economic analysis: (i) return-on-investment (ROI) comparing estimated cost savings from the intervention to the total intervention cost, and (ii) cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the net intervention costs to health outcomes: suicide deaths prevented and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We also included uncertainty analyses to propagate parameter uncertainty and sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the model outputs to changes in input parameters and assumptions. RESULTS: The estimated ROI ratio for the main analysis was 94:1 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 37 to 170). The intervention was associated with cost savings of A$596M (95% UI: A$228M to A$1,081M), 139 (95% UI: 55 to 252) suicides prevented and 107 (95% UI: 42 to 192) QALYs gained. The intervention was dominant, or cost-saving, compared with no intervention with results being robust to sensitivity analysis but varying based on the conservativeness of the parameters entered. CONCLUSION: Mindframe was found to be cost-saving, and therefore, worthy of investment and inclusion as part of national suicide prevention strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of Installing Barriers at Bridge and Cliff Sites for Suicide Prevention in Australia.

Importance: Installation of barriers has been shown to reduce suicides. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of installing barriers at multiple bridge and cliff sites where suicides are known to occur. Objective: To examine the cost-effectiveness of installing barriers at bridge and cliff sites throughout Australia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used an economic model to examine the costs, costs saved, and reductions in suicides if barriers were installed across identified bridge and cliff sites over 5 and 10 years. Specific and accessible bridge and cliff sites across Australia that reported 2 or more suicides over a 5-year period were identified for analysis. A partial societal perspective (including intervention costs and monetary value associated with preventing suicide deaths) was adopted in the development of the model. Interventions: Barriers installed at bridge and cliff sites. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was return on investment (ROI) comparing cost savings with intervention costs. Secondary outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), comprising the difference in costs between installation of barriers and no installation of barriers divided by the difference in reduction of suicide cases. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the association of changes in suicide rates with barrier installation, adjustments to the value of statistical life, and changes in maintenance costs of barriers. Results: A total of 7 bridges and 19 cliff sites were included in the model. If barriers were installed at bridge sites, an estimated US $145 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $90 to $160 million) could be saved in prevented suicides over 5 years, and US $270 million (95% UI, $176 to $298 million) over 10 years. The estimated ROI ratio for building barriers over 10 years at bridges was 2.4 (95% UI, 1.5 to 2.7); the results for cliff sites were not significant (ROI, 2.0; 95% UI, -1.1 to 3.8). The ICER indicated monetary savings due to averted suicides over the intervention cost for bridges, although evidence for similar savings was not significant for cliffs. Results were robust in all sensitivity analyses except when the value of statistical life-year over 5 or 10 years only was used. Conclusions and Relevance: In an economic analysis, barriers were a cost-effective suicide prevention intervention at bridge sites. Further research is required for cliff sites.

Influence of Spiritual Dimensions on Suicide Risk: The Role of Regional Differences.

The field of suicide prevention has been enriched by research on the association between spirituality and suicide. Many authors have suggested focusing on the various dimensions of religiosity in order to better understand the association between religion and suicidal risk, but it is unclear whether the relationship between spirituality and suicidality differs between countries with different cultures, life values, and sociohistorical experiences. To explore this, the aim of this multicenter study was to investigate the possible relationship between suicide and spirituality in Italy and Austria. In the two countries, two different groups of subjects participated: psychiatric patients and university students. The patients were evaluated with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. In addition, the following measures were used: a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale-B, the Symptom-Checklist-90-Standard, and the Multidimensional Inventory for Religious/Spiritual Well-Being. Our results confirmed the multifactorial nature of the relation between suicide risk and the various religious/spiritual dimensions, including religious/spiritual well-being and hope immanent. However, regional differences moderated this relationship in both the clinical and nonclinical samples.