Economic Evaluation of Family-Focused Programs When Parents Have a Mental Health Problem: Methodological Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: The nature of adverse effects of parental mental health problems and of the interventions to address them may require specific designs of economic evaluation studies. Nevertheless, methodological guidance is lacking. We aim to understand the broad spectrum of adverse effects from parental mental health problems in children and the economic consequences on an individual and societal level to navigate the design of economic evaluations in this field. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of empirical studies on children's adverse effects from parental mental illness. We clustered types of impact, identified individual and public cost consequences, and illustrated the results in an impact inventory. RESULTS: We found a wide variety of short- and long-term (mental) health impacts, impacts on social functioning and socioeconomic implications for the children individually, and adverse effects on the societal level. Consequently, public costs can occur in various public sectors (eg, healthcare, education), and individuals may have to pay costs privately. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evaluations in this field mostly follow standard methodological approaches (eg, cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life-years) and apply a short-time horizon. Our findings suggest applying a long-term time horizon (at least up to early adulthood), considering cost-consequence analysis and alternatives to health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years as outcome measures, and capturing the full range of possible public and private costs.

Practices to support co-design processes: A case-study of co-designing a program for children with parents with a mental health problem in the Austrian region of Tyrol.

Forms of collaborative knowledge production, such as community-academic partnerships (CAP), have been increasingly used in health care. However, instructions on how to deliver such processes are lacking. We aim to identify practice ingredients for one element within a CAP, a 6-month co-design process, during which 26 community- and 13 research-partners collaboratively designed an intervention programme for children whose parent have a mental illness. Using 22 published facilitating and hindering factors for CAP as the analytical framework, eight community-partners reflected on the activities which took place during the co-design process. From a qualitative content analysis of the data, we distilled essential practices for each CAP factor. Ten community- and eight research-partners revised the results and co-authored this article. We identified 36 practices across the 22 CAP facilitating or hindering factors. Most practices address more than one factor. Many practices relate to workshop design, facilitation methods, and relationship building. Most practices were identified for facilitating 'trust among partners', 'shared visions, goals and/or missions', 'effective/frequent communication', and 'well-structured meetings'. Fewer practices were observed for 'effective conflict resolution', 'positive community impact' and for avoiding 'excessive funding pressure/control struggles' and 'high burden of activities'. Co-designing a programme for mental healthcare is a challenging process that requires skills in process management and communication. We provide practice steps for delivering co-design activities. However, practitioners may have to adapt them to different cultural contexts. Further research is needed to analyse whether co-writing with community-partners results in a better research output and benefits for participants.