Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the Boston University Approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) compared to an active control condition (ACC) to increase the social participation (in competitive employment, unpaid work, education, and meaningful daily activities) of individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMIs). ACC can be described as treatment as usual but with an active component, namely the explicit assignment of providing support with rehabilitation goals in the area of social participation. Method: In a randomized clinical trial with 188 individuals with SMIs, BPR (n = 98) was compared to ACC (n=90). Costs were assessed with the Treatment Inventory of Costs in Patients with psychiatric disorders (TIC-P). Outcome measures for the cost-effectiveness analysis were incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost per proportional change in social participation. Budget Impact was investigated using four implementation scenarios and two costing variants. Results: Total costs per participant at 12-month follow-up were e 12,886 in BPR and e 12,012 in ACC, a non-significant difference. There were no differences with regard to social participation or QALYs. Therefore, BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. Types of expenditure with the highest costs were in order of magnitude: supported and sheltered housing, inpatient care, outpatient care, and organized activities. Estimated budget impact of wide BPR implementation ranged from cost savings to e190 million, depending on assumptions regarding uptake. There were no differences between the two costing variants meaning that from a health insurer perspective, there would be no additional costs if BPR was implemented on a wider scale in mental health care institutions. Conclusions: This was the first study to investigate BPR cost-effectiveness and budget impact. The results showed that BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. When interpreting the results, one must keep in mind that the cost-effectiveness of BPR was investigated in the area of social participation, while BPR was designed to offer support in all rehabilitation areas. Therefore, more studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of the method as a whole.
Purpose: Physical interventions during subacute rehabilitation have potential to improve functional recovery. This study explored the perspectives of children and adolescents with acquired brain injury (ABI) and their parents with respect to physical rehabilitation during the subacute phase. Methods: Thirteen children and adolescents with ABI and their parents were included and interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Six themes were identified: 1) beliefs of physical rehabilitation, 2) content of physical rehabilitation, 3) tailored care, 4) impact of context, 5) communication and 6) transition. The importance of intensive physical practice was widely supported. The positive can-do mentality was emphasised to create an atmosphere of hope, meaning that every effort would be made to achieve maximum recovery. Intensive involvement of parents is considered essential during subacute rehabilitation including an open and mutual dialogue about the focus of rehabilitation, therapy goals and future participation in their own environment. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for an intensive rehabilitation approach, tailored to the individual’s needs. The perspectives of children and adolescents and their parents in our study contribute to a better understanding of factors that are important for optimal recovery through physical rehabilitation during the subacute phase.
Abstract: Objective: The aim of this pilot implementation study was to explore the initial experiences with andimpact of Parenting with Success and Satisfaction (PARSS), a psychiatric rehabilitation and recoverybased,guided self-help intervention, for parents with severe mental illnesses. Methods: Changes in the PARSS intervention group were compared with changes in a control group in a nonequivalent controlgroup design. Outcome measures included: parenting satisfaction reported by parents; parenting success reported by mental health practitioners and family members; empowerment as reported by parents, practitioners and family members; and parents’ reported quality of life. Additional process data were obtained on relationship with practitioner, quality of contact, satisfaction with the intervention and fidelity. Results: Parenting satisfaction increased after 1 year for the PARSS group, but not for the control group. Parents’ reports of empowerment did not change for either group. The scores of parents’ empowerment reported by practitioners and family members increased in the control group, with no such change in the PARSS group. Quality of life improved significantly for the intervention group. Process measures showed that, although PARSS was not always implemented as intended, both parents and practitioners expressed satisfaction with the intervention. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: The first experiences with PARSS were mixed. This intervention, implemented by mental health practitioners, has the potential to function as a useful tool for supporting parents. Attention must be paid to enhancing intervention implementation and fidelity.doi: 10.1037/prj0000067PMID: 24866839
MULTIFILE
