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.

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.

Socioeconomic and Geographic Correlates of Intimate Partner Violence in Sri Lanka: Analysis of the 2016 Demographic and Health Survey.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health issue and violation of human rights. The prevalence of IPV in South Asia is especially pronounced. We examined the associations between socioeconomic position (SEP), geographical factors and IPV in Sri Lanka using nationally representative data. Data collected from Sri Lanka's 2016 Demographic and Health Survey were analysed using multilevel logistic regression techniques. A total of 16,390 eligible ever-partnered women aged 15-49 years were included in the analysis. Analyses were also stratified by ethnicity, type of violence, neighbourhood poverty and post-conflict residential status for selected variables. No schooling/primary educational attainment among women (OR 2.46 95% CI 1.83-3.30) and their partners (OR 2.87 95% CI 2.06-4.00), financial insecurity (OR 2.17 95% CI 1.92-2.45) and poor household wealth (OR 2.64 95% CI 2.22-3.13) were the socioeconomic factors that showed the strongest association with any IPV, after adjusting for age and religion. These associations predominately related to physical and/or sexual violence, with weak associations for psychological violence. Women living in a post-conflict environment had a higher risk (OR 2.96 95% CI 2.51-3.49) of IPV compared to other areas. Ethnic minority women (Tamil and Moor) were more likely to reside in post-conflict areas and experience poverty more acutely compared to the majority Sinhala women, which may explain the stronger associations for low SEP, post-conflict residence and IPV found among Tamil and Moor women. Policies and programs to alleviate poverty, as well as community mobilisation and school-based education programs addressing harmful gender norms may be beneficial. Trauma informed approaches are needed in post-conflict settings. Further exploratory studies investigating the complex interplay of individual, household and contextual factors occurring in this setting is required.