Loneliness in Pregnancy and Parenthood: Impacts, Outcomes, and Costs.

Background: Becoming a parent has been highlighted as a period associated with increased risks for loneliness, with around one-third of parents reporting feeling lonely often or always. However, as most understanding of loneliness is based on elderly or student cohorts, further insights into the costs of parental loneliness is needed. Method: We conducted a literature review of impacts of loneliness in pregnancy and parenthood and present a synthesis of the health, social, societal, and economic costs. We draw on evidence about impacts and costs of loneliness in other cohorts to help provide a wider context to understand the impacts and costs and how parental loneliness differs from other populations. Results: Similar to literature with elderly cohorts, parental loneliness has impacts on health and wellbeing, such as depression in new parents and increased general practitioner (GP) visits in pregnancy. But also has intergenerational impacts via its association with poor mental health and social competence and increased respiratory tract infections in the child. Physical health impacts widely associated with loneliness in other cohorts have yet to be examined in parents. Loneliness in parents is likely to result in social withdrawal further isolating parents and wider societal and economic costs relating to absence from employment and informal caring roles. Conclusion: Parental loneliness has the potential for negative and pervasive impacts. As parental loneliness has wide ranging and intergenerational impacts it is important that a multi-sectoral perspective is used when examining its costs.

Risk assessment scales to predict risk of hospital treated repeat self-harm: A cost-effectiveness modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk scales are used widely for assessing individuals presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) following self-harm. There is growing evidence that risk scales have limited clinical utility in identifying episodes at highest risk of repeat self-harm. However, their cost-effectiveness in terms of treatment allocation and subsequent repeat self-harm is unknown. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of five risk scales (SAD PERSONS Scale, Modified SAD PERSONS Scale, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, Manchester Self-Harm Rule, Barratt Impulsivity Scale) and single item clinician and patient ratings of risk. METHOD: Quality-Adjusted Life Years were estimated for each episode. The five risk scales and the patient rating were compared to the clinician rating. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for each scale, using a range of ICER thresholds. Sensitivity analysis explored different model assumptions. RESULTS: The formal scales were less cost-effective than the clinician and patient ratings across a range of ICER thresholds (£0-£30,000). The five scales were also less cost-effective than the clinician rating in most alternative scenario analyses. However, the clinician rating would be likely to result in unnecessary treatment costs for over half of patients identified as high risk. LIMITATIONS: Our primary model depended on the assumption that high-intensity care reduced patients' risk of further self-harm. CONCLUSION: The use of formal assessment tools for managing self-harm presentations to EDs did not appear to be cost-effective. While the judgement of a mental health clinician was found to be slightly more cost-effective, it still resulted in incorrect allocation of costs and missed treatment opportunities.