Adult mental health needs and expenditure in Australia

Background Relatively little international work has examined whether mental health resource allocation matches need. This study aimed to determine whether adult mental health resources in Australia are being distributed equitably. Method Individual measures of need were extrapolated to Australian Areas, and Area-based proxies of need were considered. Particular attention was paid to the prevalence of mental health problems, since this is arguably the most objective measure of need. The extent to which these measures predicted public sector, private sector and total adult mental health expenditure at an Area level was examined. Results In the public sector, 41.6% of expenditure variation was explained by the prevalence of affective disorders, personality disorders, cognitive impairment and psychosis, as well as the Area's level of economic resources and State/Territory effects. In the private sector, 72.4% of expenditure variation was explained by service use and State/Territory effects (with an alternative model incorporating service use and State/Territory supply of private psychiatrists explaining 69.4% of expenditure variation). A relatively high proportion (58.7%) of total expenditure variation could be explained by service utilisation and State/Territory effects. Conclusions For services to be delivered equitably, the majority of variation in expenditure would have to be accounted for by appropriate measures of need. The best model for public sector expenditure included an appropriate measure of need but had relatively poor explanatory power. The models for private sector and total expenditure had greater explanatory power, but relied on less appropriate measures of need. It is concluded that mental health services in Australia are not yet being delivered equitably.

How common is comorbidity and why does it occur?

Comorbidity is most generally defined as the co-occurrence of two or more mental health problems. Comorbidity between drug and other psychological disorders has emerged as a major clinical, public health and research issue over the past few decades. The reasons for comorbidity are complex. Furthermore, comorbidity is often associated with poor treatment outcome, severe illness course, and high service utilisation. This presents a significant challenge with respect to the identification, prevention and management of people with comorbid disorders. The unmet need for treatment within this group is considerable and the lack of research is unacceptable. This paper will give a brief overview of epidemiological research into comorbidity; and examine the reasons why comorbidity might occur.

Attaching unit costs to Australia's National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing

Background: In mental health, policy-makers and planners are increasingly being asked to set priorities. This means that health economists, health services researchers and clinical investigators are being called upon to work together to define and measure costs. Typically, these researchers take available service utilisation data and convert them to costs, using a range of assumptions. There are inefficiencies, as individual groups of researchers frequently repeat essentially similar exercises in achieving this end. There are clearly areas where shared or common investment in the development of statistical software syntax, analytical frameworks and other resources could maximise the use of data. Aims of the Study: This paper reports on an Australian project in which we calculated unit costs for mental health admissions and community encounters. In reporting on these calculations, our purpose is to make the data and the resources associated with them publicly available to researchers interested in conducting economic analyses, and allow them to copy, distribute and modify them, providing that all copies and modifications are available under the same terms and conditions (i.e., in accordance with the 'Copyleft' principle), Within this context, the objectives of the paper are to: (i) introduce the 'Copyleft' principle; (ii) provide an overview of the methodology we employed to derive the unit costs; (iii) present the unit costs themselves; and (iv) examine the total and mean costs for a range of single and comorbid conditions, as an example of the kind of question that the unit cost data can be used to address. Method: We took relevant data from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB), and developed a set of unit costs for inpatient and community encounters. We then examined total and mean costs for a range of single and comorbid conditions. Results: We present the unit costs for mental health admissions and mental health community contacts. Our example, which explored the association between comorbidity and total and mean costs, suggested that comorbidly occurring conditions cost more than conditions which occur on their own. Discussion: Our unit costs, and the materials associated with them, have been published in a freely available form governed by a provision termed 'Copyleft'. They provide a valuable resource for researchers wanting to explore economic questions in mental health. Implications for Health Policies: Our unit costs provide an important resource to inform economic debate in mental health in Australia, particularly in the area of priority-setting. In the past, such debate has largely, been based on opinion. Our unit costs provide the underpinning to strengthen the evidence-base of this debate. Implications for Further Research: We would encourage other Australian researchers to make use of our unit costs in order to foster comparability across studies. We would also encourage Australian and international researchers to adopt the 'Copyleft' principle in equivalent circumstances. Furthermore, we suggest that the provision of 'Copyleft'-contingent funding to support the development of enabling resources for researchers should be considered in the planning of future large-scale collaborative survey work, both in Australia and overseas.

Health and developmental outcome of children following prenatal diagnosis of confined placental mosaicism

Objective To determine the long-term health and development of a cohort of children in whom confined placental mosaicism (CPM) was diagnosed at prenatal diagnosis. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed comparing 36 children in whom CPM had been diagnosed prenatally with 195 controls subjects in whom a normal karyotype had been detected prenatally. Data comprising birth information, health, health service utilisation, growth, development, behaviour, and the family were collected by a maternal questionnaire administered when the subjects were aged between 4 and 11 years. Results CPM cases did not differ from controls across a broad range of health measures and there were no major health problems or birth defects among the CPM group. No increase was detected in the incidence of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) among CPM cases; however, postnatal growth was reduced compared with controls (p = 0.047). Development and behaviour in CPM cases was similar to that of controls. Conclusions The prenatal diagnosis of CPM is not associated with an increased risk of birth defects or developmental problems, but may be associated with decreased growth. Copyright (C) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PRN Sedation-patterns of prescribing and administration in a child and adolescent mental health inpatient service

Objective: To identify utilisation rates of prn (pro re nata) sedation in children and adolescents receiving inpatient psychiatric treatment, and to compare correlates of prn prescribing and administration. Method A retrospective chart review examined 122 medical charts from a child and youth mental health inpatient service. Results 71.3% of patients were prescribed prn sedation and 50.8% were administered prn sedation. Patients received an average of 8.0 doses of prn sedation, with 9.8% receiving 10 or more doses. Chlorpromazine and diazepam were the most commonly utilised agents. Prescribing of prn sedation was only related to use of regular medications (p < 0.01), and non-parent carers (p < 0.01). In contrast, administration of prn sedation was associated with multiple diagnoses (p < 0.01), pervasive development disorder (p < 0.01), mental retardation (p < 0.01) ADHD (p < 0.01), longer hospital admission (p < 0.01), use of atypical antipsychotics (p < 0.01) and polypharmacy (p < 0.01). Conclusions Despite lack of data to inform practice, prn sedation is widely utilised, especially in complex patients. Future research in this area needs to incorporate nurses and examine whether patients benefit from prn sedation, which drugs and dosing patterns optimise safety and efficacy, and what is the role of prn sedation in the context of other medication.