Utilising survey data to inform public policy: Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of ten mental disorders

Background Mental health survey data are now being used proactively to decide how the burden of disease might best be reduced. Aims To study the cost-effectiveness of current and optimal treatments for mental disorders and the proportion of burden avertable by each. Method Data for three affective, four anxiety and two alcohol use disorders and for schizophrenia were compared in terms of cost, burden averted and efficiency of current and optimal treatment. We then calculated the burden unavertable given current knowledge. The unit of health gain was a reduction in the years lived with disability (YLDs). Results Summing across all disorders, current treatment averted 13% of the burden, at an average cost of AUS$30 000 per YLD gained. Optimal treatment at current coverage could avert 20% of the burden, at an average cost of AUS$18 000 per YLD gained. Optimal treatment at optimal coverage could avert 28% of the burden, at AUS$16 000 per YLD gained. Sixty per cent of the burden of mental disorders was deemed to be unavertable. Conclusions The efficiency of treatment varied more than tenfold across disorders. Although coverage of some of the more efficient treatments should be extended, other factors justify continued use of less-efficient treatments for some disorders. Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

International symposium on career development and public policy: Synthesis of country papers

During the conference, country teams were asked to select and address selection of six themes: human capital, labour supply, employability skills, carer development services for workforce development, older workers or evidence based research. This synthesis of country papers covers the conceptual links between these themes. It then goes on to cover three reframed themes focusing on career development policies and services, but distinguishing three levels of such policies and services: workforce preparation, workforce adaptability and workforce re-integration.

Roles of social pain and defense mechanisms in response to social exclusion: Reply to Panksepp (2005) and Coff (2005)

In comments on G. MacDonald and M. R. Leary (2005), J. Panksepp (2005) argued for more emphasis on social pain mechanisms, whereas P. J. Corr (2005) argued for more emphasis on physical defense mechanisms. In response to the former, the authors clarify their positions on the topics of anger, the usefulness of rat models, the role of analgesic mechanisms, and basic motivational processes. In response to the latter, the authors clarify their positions on the topics of the relation of social exclusion to fear, the value of the pain affect construct, and the nature of the social pain experience. The authors conclude that consideration of the roles of both social pain and defense mechanisms is essential to best understand human response to social exclusion.

Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain

The authors forward the hypothesis that social exclusion is experienced as painful because reactions to rejection are mediated by aspects of the physical pain system. The authors begin by presenting the theory that overlap between social and physical pain was an evolutionary development to aid social animals in responding to threats to inclusion. The authors then review evidence showing that humans demonstrate convergence between the 2 types of pain in thought, emotion, and behavior, and demonstrate, primarily through nonhuman animal research, that social and physical pain share common physiological mechanisms. Finally, the authors explore the implications of social pain theory for rejection-elicited aggression and physical pain disorders.

Urban vulnerability in Sydney: Policy and institutional ambiguities in bushfire protection

Despite the inevitability of the bushfires hazard across the Sydney region, a mismatch exists between reactive technological fixes and proactive social programs which have far-reaching vulnerability and governance consequences. This paper questions the adequacy of current policy and action, revealing contradictions and tensions that expose Sydney's vulnerability and have implications for other Australian cities.