Skip to main content

An economic evaluation of a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service: a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Background

Clinical practice guidelines and policies direct community mental health services to provide preventive care to address chronic disease risks, however, such care is infrequently provided in routine consultations. An alternative model of care is to appoint a clinician to the dedicated role of offering and providing preventive care in an additional consultation: the ‘specialist clinician’ model. Economic evaluations of models of care are needed to determine the cost of adhering to guidelines and policies, and to inform pragmatic service delivery decisions. This study is an economic evaluation of the specialist clinician model; designed to achieve policy concordant preventive care delivery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the incremental costs, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of a ‘specialist preventive care clinician’ (an occupational therapist) was conducted in a randomised controlled trial, where participants were randomised to receive usual care; or usual care plus the offer of an additional preventive care consultation with the specialist clinician. The study outcome was client acceptance of referrals to two free telephone-based chronic disease prevention services. This is a key care delivery outcome mandated by the local health district policy of the service. The base case analysis assumed the mental health service cost perspective. A budget impact analysis determined the annual budget required to implement the model of care for all clients of the community mental health service over 5 years.

Results

There was a significantly greater increase from baseline to follow-up in the proportion of intervention participants accepting referrals to both telephone services, compared to usual care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $347 per additional acceptance of a referral (CI: $263–$494). The annual budget required to implement the model of care for all prospective clients was projected to be $711,446 over 5-years; resulting in 2616 accepted referrals.

Conclusions

The evaluation provides key information regarding the costs for the mental health service to adhere to policy targets, indicating the model of care involved a low per client cost whilst increasing key preventive care delivery outcomes. Additional modelling is required to further explore its economic benefits.

Trial registration

ACTRN12616001519448. Registered 3 November 2016, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371709.

Peer Review reports

Background

People with a mental illness are more likely to engage in chronic disease risk behaviours, including: tobacco smoking, insufficient nutrition, harmful alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity, compared to the general population [1,2,3,4,5]. The higher prevalence of chronic disease risk behaviours contributes substantially to the greater burden of chronic disease morbidity and mortality [6,7,8,9], and reduced life expectancy [7, 10] experienced by people with a mental illness. The economic burden of chronic disease is considerable in Australia [2] and internationally [11], accounting for 36% of direct healthcare costs in Australia [2]. Given the considerable health and economic burden associated with chronic disease, there is a need to develop preventive interventions to redress the health and economic inequity experienced by this high-risk population group [12].

Clinical practice guidelines recognise that mental health services provide an opportunity to deliver evidence-based ‘preventive care’: care that aims to address clients’ chronic disease risk behaviours (tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, harmful alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity) [13,14,15,16]; which may comprise three care elements: assessment, brief advice, and referral [17,18,19]. Referral is an important preventive care outcome, with referral of clients to specialist chronic disease prevention services representing a key component of State and Health District-wide policies; and being a key performance indicator for health services, including mental health services [20,21,22]. Referral to specialist services is a fundamental component of health care delivery, and ensures clients receive ongoing, specialist care to support positive changes in risk behaviours. Referral to telephone-based chronic disease prevention services represents an important pillar of chronic disease prevention policy in New South Wales (NSW), Australia [20,21,22].

Provision of preventive care, including referral, has consistently been reported to be effective in reducing chronic disease risk behaviours [23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. However, low provision of evidence-based preventive care in routine mental health consultations has been reported in Australia [30,31,32,33] and internationally [34,35,36,37]. To address this, an alternative model of preventive care delivery has been suggested: implementing a dedicated clinical position to offer and provide clients with preventive care. While the exact role undertaken by a ‘specialist preventive care clinician’ has varied in previous research, and could be to encourage and supplement the provision of preventive care by usual clinicians in routine mental health consultations [38]; in three [39,40,41] of the four [38,39,40,41] previous studies identified, the role of the clinician was to offer preventive care to clients in an additional consultation. Of these three studies, two (a cross-sectional study [40] and a randomised controlled trial [39]) reported outcomes regarding preventive care provision, both demonstrating a positive intervention effect. In the cross-sectional study, the proportion of clients receiving metabolic monitoring was significantly higher in a service where this was the responsibility of a nurse in a dedicated role (78%), compared to a service where this care was provided by usual clinicians in routine consultations (3%; p = 0.01) [40]. The study did not consider the cost-efficiency or affordability of the model of care. Economic evaluations of models of service delivery that compare cost of delivery to a relevant outcome are both recommended and necessary [42, 43]. In an applied setting, these evaluations are required to determine the resources required to achieve the aims of guidelines and health policies. This information is then used to inform the pragmatic decisions of policy makers and service providers.

The second study, a randomised controlled trial in the US, examined the effectiveness [39], cost-effectiveness and budget impact [44] of the specialist clinician model of care. Clients were randomly allocated to receive usual care or additional consultations with a ‘care manager’ (a registered nurse) who had the role of providing education, advice, and assistance in overcoming barriers to accessing primary medical care. At a 2-year follow-up, the proportion of recommended preventive services clients received (measured across four domains: physical examinations, screening tests, vaccinations, and health education); was higher in the intervention group (56.2%) than control group (17.4%; p < 0.001). The average annual cost of the intervention per participant was US$973. The study also considered the budget impact of the intervention, an analysis which considers the expected financial, or accounting, impact to health services from implementing a new intervention in a health care system or service [45, 46]. When examined from this perspective, the intervention was not considered feasible to implement as revenues generated from Medicaid rebates did not cover the implementation costs. No previous research has explored the cost-effectiveness or budget impact of the model of care in other jurisdictions.

The applied study reported here was undertaken to inform decision makers about the resources needed to adhere to key policy imperatives. The aim of the study was to assess the costs, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of implementing the specialist preventive care clinician model of care to increase client acceptance of referrals to telephone-based chronic disease prevention services (the Get Healthy Service and Quitline). The evaluation was undertaken in a randomised controlled trial, where a ‘specialist preventive care clinician’ (an occupational therapist and experienced mental health clinician) was dedicated to the role of offering and providing clients of a community mental health service with an additional preventive care consultation [47].

Methods

Intervention trial design, setting, and sample

A two-group parallel randomised controlled trial was undertaken in one community mental health service in regional NSW (New South Wales) Australia (Fig. 1). The community mental health service is located in a NSW local health district that has a policy to provide preventive care (assessment, advice, and referral) for key risk behaviours in routine mental health consultations. A key component of the policy is referral to specialist chronic disease prevention services, with referrals directed to free, NSW telephone-based services: Get Healthy Service (for insufficient nutrition, harmful alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity) and Quitline (for tobacco smoking). These services have been reported to be effective in reducing risk behaviours [48, 49]. Provision of preventive care, including referral, under this policy has been sub-optimal [30, 31], hence the need for health service strategies to remedy this situation. A published protocol has described the methods for the study, which aimed to increase the provision of guideline and policy-concordant preventive care [47].

Fig. 1
figure1

Trial design and participant flow through the trial

Clients eligible for the study (over the age of 18 and clinically determined by the treating team as sufficiently physically and mentally capable to participate) were identified by mental health service staff. All eligible clients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio; block sizes 2, 4, and 6; generated by a statistician independent of the project) to usual care (preventive care provided by mental health clinicians in routine consultations) or usual care plus the offer of an additional consultation with a specialist preventive care clinician (intervention condition). For intervention participants, the additional consultation was scheduled to occur between the baseline and 1-month follow-up. Neither clients nor clinicians were blinded to study allocation, to align with how this model would be implemented. Outcome data were obtained via telephone interviews with participants at baseline (February–September 2017) and a 1-month (March–October 2017) follow-up. The effect of the intervention on client-reported receipt of preventive care (assessment, advice, and offer and acceptance of referrals) for risk behaviours was reported separately [50]. The Human Research Ethics Committees of Hunter New England Health (Ref no. 16/02/17/4.09) and the University of Newcastle (Ref no. H-2016-0123) approved the research. The trial was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616001519448). The study adhered to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines (Additional File 1 contains the CONORT checklist [51]).

Economic study design

A within-trial evaluation of cost and cost-effectiveness was retrospectively undertaken, adopting the cost perspective of the mental health service in order to capture the direct costs incurred by the mental health service to implement the model of preventive care. The outcome of the economic analysis was the acceptance of referrals to the free telephone coaching services: NSW Get Healthy service and the NSW Quitline. The selection of this outcome aligns with the local health district’s policy. Therefore, reporting this outcome in the economic evaluation directly informs decision-makers about the cost of adhering to this chronic disease prevention policy. Furthermore, of the outcomes examined in the effectiveness analysis, this outcome was the most pertinent outcome captured by the trial as it is the outcome that the mental health service can directly influence. Moreover, research indicates that providing a referral may be the most effective element of preventive care for producing long-term behaviour change [18, 52]. The time horizon was the 1-month follow-up of the trial. The economic evaluation adhered to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist (Additional File 2 contains CHEERS checklist [53]).

Intervention

A specialist preventive care clinician (an occupational therapist) who had the dedicated role of offering and providing clients an additional consultation (approximately 40-min) and follow-up was embedded in the community mental health service for six-months. The objective of the position was to provide preventive care (assessment, advice, and referral) and to motivate clients to accept referrals to existing free telephone coaching services. The clinician telephoned clients approximately two-weeks following their consultation to follow-up on their progress and offer any additional advice or assistance necessary.

Trial data collection procedures and measures

Eligible clients were mailed an information statement and provided an opportunity to opt-out of the study. All remaining clients were contacted by trained telephone interviewers at baseline and follow-up to obtain verbal consent to participate and collect the following information via computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI; questions developed based on the research team’s previous research in this area [31, 54]):

  1. 1)

    Engagement in health risk behaviours in the previous month, being: current tobacco smoking status, daily serves of fruit and vegetable consumed, consumption of alcohol, and minutes of physical activity a week (walking, moderate, and vigorous activity).

  2. 2)

    If participants had been offered a referral to a relevant telephone service from the mental health service (“did the mental health service offer to arrange for the Get Healthy Service/Quitline to call you?”), and if so, if they accepted (“did you accept this offer?”). There was no distinction as to whether the referral was offered by their usual treating clinician or the specialist clinician.

Data from participants who were eligible for a referral (i.e. not meeting Australian National guidelines for the risk behaviours [55,56,57,58]; Table 1) were used to calculate: [1] acceptance of a referral to the Get Healthy Service (of participants who were not meeting guidelines for nutrition, alcohol, and/or physical activity; yes vs no/don’t know/referral not offered) and [2] acceptance of a referral to the Quitline (of participants who were currently smoking; yes vs no/don’t know/referral not offered).

Table 1 Definitions of eligibility for a referral

Cost data collection methods and measures

Literature review

A literature review of similar studies was undertaken to ensure all pertinent costs were considered for costing the model of care, with a focus on studies that contained an economic evaluation of a dedicated clinician(s) providing preventive care (for any component of physical health) in any health setting. The following databases were searched from database inception to 10/01/2018: Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; see Additional File 3 for search terms). The review indicated that the following costs should be considered: salary for the specialist clinician [59], room space/premises costs for the specialist clinician [59], administrative costs [60], travel costs for client home visits (where required) [61, 62], printing of any supporting materials [59], training costs for the specialist clinician [44, 59], and telephone calls (made by the specialist clinician to arrange consultations and/or follow-up on client progress) [59, 61].

Data collection and measures

A retrospective economic analysis was undertaken to determine the incremental cost of the model of care in a community mental health service. Costs are reported in 2018 Australian dollars. Informed by the literature review, all contributing costs were identified, collected, and aggregated. The specialist preventive care clinician wage was determined by the relevant award (level 3, year 2 health professional) [63]. The specialist clinician recorded their weekly activities and estimated their time engaged in these activities each week (see Additional File 4). Only time engaged in clinical tasks, relevant to the role of specialist preventive care clinician, were included in the costing analysis so as to determine the cost-effectiveness of the model of care in an applied service context [64].

A bottom-up micro-costing approach guided the collection of all itemised costs [64]. The wage for reception staff was determined by the relevant award (level 1, year 3) [65]. The community mental health service provided an estimate for the time required of reception staff to support the intervention by receiving and directing clients visiting the service, and answering incoming calls to the clinician. The costs of telephoning clients (to arrange consultations and deliver follow-up calls) were based on published costs of the telephone provider [66]; printing costs (paper and ink) were accessed from an office supplies store [67,68,69]; and travel costs were based on standard cents/km rates from the Australian Tax Office [70]. Overheads were calculated as 27.5% of the cost of labour, based on the standard factor for the health district [71]. The mental health service estimated the room space required to hold the additional consultation (12m2), and the cost of this space was determined on an average for the local area [72].

For both the intervention and usual care conditions, it was assumed that no additional costs were incurred for the delivery of usual preventive care in routine mental health consultations.

Analytical methods

All analyses were undertaken using Microsoft Excel Software, 2013.

Cost

A cost model was constructed in a Microsoft Excel workbook where costs were entered and analysed.

Base case cost-effectiveness analysis

Two separate analyses were undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of the model of care in increasing client acceptance of referrals to each telephone service, for participants eligible to receive each referral. Costs were apportioned according to the eligibility for a referral to each telephone service among participants (see Additional file 5). Additionally, to determine the cost-effectiveness of the total intervention across both outcomes and for the whole sample (regardless of referral eligibility), cost-effectiveness was also calculated for referral acceptances to both the Get Healthy Service and Quitline combined.

A complete case analysis was performed. Total costs were adjusted to account for missing data. Intervention delivery and participation in data collection were independent, such that clients could receive the intervention (i.e. incur a cost) and not participate in data collection. Therefore, to estimate the appropriate cost of the intervention attributable to participants who provided data, the total cost of intervention delivery was firstly calculated. Data were missing for 54% of intervention participants at the follow-up. The total intervention cost was adjusted accordingly to estimate the proportion of intervention costs attributable to the participants with available data, where costs were reduced to 46% of the total amount.

The excel workbook was programmed to undertake 1000 bootstrapped iterations [64]. The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was taken from these iterations and expressed as cost per percentage point increase in the acceptance of referrals from the mental health service to the i) Get Healthy Service, ii) Quitline, and iii) both telephone services combined. Bootstrapping was used to determine 95% confidence intervals [64]. The ICERs were plotted to produce cost-effectiveness planes, graphing the cost compared to effectiveness of the model of care, relative to usual service delivery. Lastly, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed to quantify the probability of the intervention being cost-effective for each of the outcomes, at varying levels of willingness to pay [64]. A Bayesian adjustment was undertaken using R statistical software for one outcome, acceptance of referral to the Quitline, due to the number of events/non-events being zero [73]. The beta posterior distributions used for simulation were based on conjugate binomial likelihoods and a uniform prior [73].

Sensitivity analysis

Univariate sensitivity analyses tested the effect of plausible variations in key input parameters on the ICERs. Firstly, a number of studies have explored the potential of nurse-led interventions for promoting risk behaviour change among people with a mental illness [38, 74, 75]. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken using a lower resource cost, where the specialist preventive care clinician salary was based on the public health system nurses’ and midwives’ state award (4th year registered nurse) [76].

Secondly, research has suggested that receiving healthy lifestyle support from a peer worker (defined by the NSW Mental Health Commission as a person with a lived experience of mental illness in addition to the skills and qualifications required to undertake a specific role [77]) may be acceptable [78] and that the potential of a peer worked in this role should be explored. Based on recommendations from the service, this salary was taken from the NSW health service health professionals award [63].

Thirdly, the involvement of receptionists may vary between services, where a service may have receptionists more heavily involved in performing non-clinical tasks (e.g. arranging consultations and faxing referral forms) and less clinician time to do so. A sensitivity analysis explored a scenario where there was an increase in the time allocated to reception staff support (additional 5 hours per week), and a decrease in the time allocated to the specialist clinician (reduction of 5 hours per week). This time estimate was determined based on process data collected by the specialist clinician (see Additional File 4).

Lastly, increasing the effectiveness of the intervention on client uptake (20% increase in referral acceptances) was tested.

Budget impact analysis: managerial perspective

A budget impact analysis (BIA) determines the expected financial or accounting impact of implementing an intervention [45, 46]. This analysis takes a managerial perspective and provides a basis for decision makers in health services to assess the affordability of a new intervention, given the practical constraints of available health care funding and other potential uses of that funding [79]. Informed by the CEA, a BIA was undertaken in accordance with a published checklist developed in accordance with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) recommendations [45]. The aim was to project the costs of implementing and sustaining the specialist preventive care clinician over a five-year time horizon for the whole client population of the mental health service, coupled with the projected effect in terms of number of referral acceptances (to the Quitline, Get Healthy Service, and total referral acceptances combined). The BIA considers costs for all prospective clients of the service.

A prevalence cohort model was used [45]. The number of annual clients was provided by the mental health service. The uptake of the intervention and direct effects were estimated using trial data. The cost of implementing the intervention for the total client population was calculated using identical methods to the base case analysis. A sensitivity analysis estimated budget impact if a registered nurse was employed in the specialist clinician role [76].

Results

Sample characteristics

Figure 1 displays participant flow through the trial. At baseline, 389 clients completed or partially completed the interview (intervention n = 203, usual care n = 186), and 367 completed or partially completed the follow-up interview (intervention n = 186, control n = 181). Chi-square tests indicated that the completion rates at baseline and follow-up did not significantly differ by condition (χ2(1) = .698, p = 0.193; and χ2(1) = 0.121, p = 0.728, respectively). Characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 2. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline or follow-up in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics (assessed using chi-square tests for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables).

Table 2 Characteristics of the sample

Trial outcomes

From baseline to follow-up, there was a significantly greater absolute increase in the proportion of intervention participants accepting referrals to the Get Healthy Service (0.5% at baseline to 19.2% at follow-up; absolute increase + 18.7%) and the Quitline (1.0 to 11.4%; + 10.4% increase), as compared to usual care (Get Healthy Service: 1.1 to 0.6%; − 0.5% decrease; Quitline: 1.1 to 0%; − 1.1% decrease, respectively). The change between time points was 93.3 (risk ratio; 95% CI: 6.5–1341.2, p < .001) and 19.8 (risk ratio; 95% CI: 1.0–952.0, p = .040) times greater in the intervention compared to usual care group for acceptance of referrals to the Get Healthy Service and Quitline, respectively.

Intervention costs

Table 3 shows the breakdown of intervention costs. The total cost of embedding the specialist preventive care clinician in the community mental health service for 6 months was $27,684.41, being $68.19 per intervention participant.

Table 3 Itemised costs of embedding specialist preventive care clinician in the community mental health service for 6 months

Base case

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) represent the incremental cost per additional referral acceptance in the intervention, compared to usual care group. The ICERs were: $287 per additional Get Healthy Service referral acceptance (95% CI: $226–$422), $472 per additional Quitline referral acceptance (95% CI: $256–$1514), and $347 per total referrals acceptances to both services combined (95% CI: $263–$494). Analysis of the bootstrapped ICERs found that 100% of cases were in the north-east quadrant for all three outcomes, indicating that the intervention was both more costly and more effective than usual care [64] (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure2

Cost-effectiveness planes

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the incremental costs ranged from $264–$372 per Get Healthy Service referral acceptance, $348–$980 per Quitline referral acceptance, and $306–$432 per total referral acceptances combined, from a 20 to 90% probability of cost-effectiveness, respectively (see Additional File 6).

Sensitivity analysis

Figure 3 outlines the results of the sensitivity analysis. Employing a registered nurse in the role (Test i) resulted in lower ICERs: $229 ($175–$324) for the Get Healthy Service, $371 ($211–$1375) for the Quitline, and $270 ($209–$376) for both telephone services combined. A peer worker in this role (Test ii) also lowered the ICERs: $211 ($161–$303) for the Get Healthy Service, $352 ($192–$1010) for the Quitline, and $252 ($190–$353) for both telephone services combined. Test (iii) increased the involvement of reception staff, yielding lower ICERs: $248 ($187–$358) for the Get Healthy Service, $372 ($215–$1340) for the Quitline, and $295 ($226–$4166) for both telephone services combined. Test (iv) increased intervention effectiveness by 20%, resulting lower ICERs: $247 ($192–$344) for the Get Healthy Service, $402 ($236–$1439) for the Quitline, and $279 ($218–$383) for both telephone services combined.

Fig. 3
figure3

ICERs and confidence intervals for sensitivity analyses. Note. Confidence intervals for each ICER estimate are represented by the outer bars.

Budget impact analysis

The budget impact analysis is presented in Table 4. The prospective client population (i.e. the total number of eligible clients of the community mental health service) was estimated to be 8927 over the 5 years. The projected cost to upscale and implement the model of care for the whole client population for a period of 5-years was $711,446. The annual cost was $137,393 in the first year (2018), resulting in an expected impact of 382 annual acceptances of referrals across telephone services (87 to the Quitline and 295 to the Get Healthy service). Annual costs were projected to increase each year, being up to $148,060 in the fifth year (2022). Sensitivity analysis indicated that if a registered nurse was in the position, the total cost was decreased to $540,559 (annual cost ranging between $104,410 in the first year to $112,502) in the fifth year).

Table 4 Budget impact analysis

Discussion

This is the first Australian study to examine the cost-efficiency and affordability of embedding a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service to enhance the universal provision of care to reduce preventable chronic disease risk behaviours. This applied economic analysis determined the cost for the mental health service to adhere to key policy targets, with the cost of the model of care being $68.19 per client randomised to the intervention condition (n = 406). The BIA estimated that the costs to implement the model of care for all prospective clients of the community mental health service was $711,446 over 5-years (N = 8927 clients), generating 2616 accepted referrals. The findings suggest that the model of care involves a relatively low per-client cost [59, 61] and demonstrates the cost to achieve guideline and policy-concordant preventive care delivery in a mental health service. As such, this information is directly relevant to decision makers in health services.

This study is one of few economic evaluations of interventions that address the poor physical health of people with a mental illness [80, 81], and one of only two studies that have examined the cost-effectiveness of a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service [44] Although similar ICERs were not available for the present findings to be compared to previous cost-effectiveness studies, the cost per-participant results for the present study are comparable to previous studies reporting the cost-effectiveness of specialist clinicians in general health settings [59, 61].

The largest cost of the intervention was attributable to the labour of the clinician, accounting for approximately 60% of the total intervention costs. In the present study, the specialist clinician’s clinical workload was not equivalent to a full-time position. This may be contributed to by the intervention uptake rate, where less than half of intervention participants took up the additional consultation. Depending on the size and location of individual mental health services, there is potential that one full-time equivalent clinician could treat clients across multiple services, or only a part-time position may be required for smaller services; thereby improving cost-effectiveness by maximising the number of clients utilising the specialist clinician’s services. Future research may determine the critical client population size per service to avoid saturation of the clinician’s capacity, whilst maximising the number of clients utilising their services in order to optimise cost-effectiveness. A job evaluation and classification analysis for the institution of this new role may objectively determine the time, qualifications, skills and experience required to fulfil the position’s responsibilities [82].

Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to further explore the results under different, plausible assumptions. Lower ICERs compared to the base case analysis were observed across outcomes for all sensitivity analyses, demonstrating the potential to improve cost-effectiveness in future research and implementation of service delivery models. These parameters should be considered by policy makers and service providers in the context of the specific circumstances of different services and health districts. Across all outcomes, the lowest ICERs were found when testing a peer-worker employed as the specialist preventive care clinician. However, the sensitivity analyses varying the health professional employed as the specialist clinician are constrained as they did not consider any variation in effectiveness. For example, previous research indicates that behaviour change interventions may be perceived as more acceptable when being provided by a peer than a mental health clinician [78], however, their relative effectiveness has not been explored. Future research should consider the potential of a peer worker in this role.

The budget impact analysis estimated the resources required to implement the model of care for the whole client population of the community mental health service. In contrast with previous research conducted in the US [44], the model of care tested in the present study did not attract revenues. The resources required to fund the implementation of the model of care were projected to increase annually (in line with projected increases in the client population and labour costs), ranging from $137,393 in the first to $148,060 in the fifth year. This budget impact statement is expected to be of key interest to decision makers, providing a projection of the costs of implementing the model of care to meet the key policy target of referral to specialist chronic disease prevention services. Due to the use of trial-based evidence for the budget impact statement, it did not calculate savings for the health system based on reduced use of downstream healthcare resources as a consequence of exposure to the new model of care.

The study results should be considered in the context of its limitations. Firstly, a key limitation of the present study was the consideration of only immediate (within-trial) costs and benefits to the mental health service; without consideration of downstream and long-term costs. Given this was a retrospective, trial-based analysis, downstream costs and costs avoided were not available. Hence, modelling of such costs without a good evidence-base would introduce considerable, and unpredictable, bias. While the within trial analysis provides useful information to decision makers on the cost-efficiency and affordability of implementing the model of care in the mental health service, further research is needed to explore cost-effectiveness with a broader, societal perspective and a longer time horizon. This future research should consider the complexity of public health interventions, and could use a systems approach to the larger-scale design and economic evaluation of the specialist clinician model [83]. Furthermore, modelling patient outcomes such as quality-adjusted life years was not logistically possible within the present study, but would be preferable to provide a more comprehensive estimate of the costs and benefits of the model of care and further inform service delivery planning [84]. Secondly, the intervention was implemented at a single mental health service and in the context of policies specific to the state and health district. Generalisability to other contexts is constrained as other services may have different preventive care policies and key performance indicators. Thirdly, primary outcome data for the trial as described in the study protocol (client referral to and uptake of the telephone services as obtained from the respective services) were not available. Client-reported acceptance of referrals was therefore chosen as the most pertinent outcome to enable examination of costs; relevant to state and district wide policies and the service’s key performance indicators. Client self-report has been demonstrated to be an acceptable measure of receipt of preventive care [85, 86]. Lastly, as the model of care increased the number of accepted referrals to specialist telephone services, its wider implementation would need to occur in consultation with each telephone service to determine the ability of the services to support the increased number of clients, for example, whether their workforce could meet this demand.

A strength of the present study includes the diagnostically heterogeneous sample, which has been recognised as important given that previous economic evaluations have largely focused on specific diagnoses or categories, limiting generalisability [80]. Secondly, the present study examined an intervention that simultaneously targeted multiple risk behaviours. Such multi-risk interventions have been suggested to be more efficient and cost-effective than interventions targeting only one risk [87, 88], given that they provide ability to address multiple risks at a time for a similar start-up and delivery cost. Lastly, this applied economic evaluation provides a comprehensive assessment of the cost-efficiency and affordability of meeting clinical practice guideline and policy targets for mental health services. Such an assessment forms an important step in preparing a Business Case, which would provide robust evidence to support evidence-based decisions regarding resource allocation [89].

Conclusions

The specialist clinician model of care significantly increased the number of clients of a community mental health service accepting referrals to telephone behaviour change services, at a cost of $68 per participant. Given that referral to specialist services is a key pillar of chronic disease prevention policy, the results of this study will inform decision-makers regarding the cost for a mental health service to adhere to such clinical practice guidelines and policies, and deliver evidence-based preventive care to people with a mental illness. Future research should undertake modelling to determine the economic impact of the model of care when considering client outcomes in a cost-utility study, and taking a broader societal perspective considering downstream and long-term costs.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available to preserve the privacy of participants; however, they are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CATI:

Computer assisted telephone interviews

ICER:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

NSW:

New South Wales

BIA:

Budget impact analysis

IPSOR:

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

CHEERS:

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards

CONSORT:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

SD:

Standard deviation

TAFE:

Technical and Further Education

References

  1. 1.

    Bartlem K, Bowman J, Bailey J, Freund M, Wye P, Lecathelinais C, et al. Chronic disease health risk behaviours amongst people with a mental illness. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2015.

  2. 2.

    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's health 2014. Canberra: AIHW; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Davidson S, Judd F, Jolley D, Hocking B, Thompson S, Hyland B. Cardiovascular risk factors for people with mental illness. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry. 2001;35(2):196–202.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kilian R, Becker T, Krüger K, Schmid S, Frasch K. Health behavior in psychiatric in-patients compared with a German general population sample. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006;114(4):242–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Stubbs B, Firth J, Berry A, Schuch FB, Rosenbaum S, Gaughran F, et al. How much physical activity do people with schizophrenia engage in? A systematic review, comparative meta-analysis and meta-regression. Schizophr Res. 2016.

  6. 6.

    Druss BG, Walker ER. Mental disorders and medical comorbidity. Synth Proj Res Synth Rep. 2011;21:1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Walker E, McGee RE, Druss BG. Mortality in mental disorders and global disease burden implications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(4):334–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    De Hert M, Correll CU, Bobes J, Cetkovich-Bakmas M, Cohen DAN, Asai I, et al. Physical illness in patients with severe mental disorders. I. Prevalence, impact of medications and disparities in health care. World Psychiatry. 2011;10(1):52–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Morgan VA, Waterreus A, Jablensky AV, Mackinnon A, McGrath JJ, Carr V, et al. People living with psychotic illness 2010: report on the second Australian national survey. Commonwealth of Australia; 2011.

  10. 10.

    Lawrence D, Hancock KJ, Kisely S. The gap in life expectancy from preventable physical illness in psychiatric patients in Western Australia: retrospective analysis of population based registers. BMJ. 2013;346:f2539.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bloom DE, Cafiero, E.T., Jané-Llopis, E, Abrahams-Gessel, S, Bloom, L.R., Fathima, S, Feigl, A.B., Gaziano, T, Mowafi, M, Pandya, A, Prettner, K, Rosenberg, L, Seligman, B, Stein, A., & Weinstein, C. The global economic burden of non-communicable diseases. In: Forum WE, editor. Geneva. 2011.

  12. 12.

    World Health Organisation. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013–2020. Geneva: WHO; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Galletly C, Castle D, Dark F, Humberstone V, Jablensky A, Killackey E, et al. Royal Australian and new Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the management of schizophrenia and related disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50(5):410–72.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. Rockville: AHRQ; 2009.

  15. 15.

    NSW department of health. Physical Health Care of Mental Health Consumers: guidelines. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Welsh Assembly Government. The role of community mental health teams in delivering community mental health services: interim policy implementation guidance and standards. Wales: Welsh Assembly Government; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Revell CC, Schroeder SA. Simplicity matters: using system-level changes to encourage clinician intervention in helping tobacco users quit. Nicotine Tob Res. 2005;7(Suppl 1):S67–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Glasgow RE, Goldstein MG, Ockene JK, Pronk NP. Translating what we have learned into practice. Principles and hypotheses for interventions addressing multiple behaviors in primary care. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(2 Suppl):88–101.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Schroeder SA. What to do with a patient who smokes. JAMA. 2005;294(4):482–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    NSW Ministry of Health. NSW action for diabetes prevention: what health professionals and health services can do. North Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health. 2016.

  21. 21.

    NSW Government. Looking forward to 2021: strategic plan for Hunter New England local Health District. HNELHD. 2018.

  22. 22.

    NSW Government. Health promotion action: 2018–2019 year in review. Cenral Coast Local Health District. 2019.

  23. 23.

    Quinn VP, Hollis JF, Smith KS, Rigotti NA, Solberg LI, Hu W, et al. Effectiveness of the 5-as tobacco cessation treatments in nine HMOs. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(2):149–54.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Rueda-Clausen C, Benterud E, Bond T, Olszowka R, Vallis TM, Sharma AM. Effect of Implementing The 5As of Obesity Management Frameowrk on provider-patient interactions in Primary Care . Canadian Journal of Diabetes. 2014;4(1):39–44.

  25. 25.

    Gordon JS, Andrews JA, Crews KM, Payne TJ, Severson HH. The 5A's vs 3A's plus proactive quitline referral in private practice dental offices: preliminary results. Tob Control. 2007;16(4):285–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Goldstein MG, Whitlock EP, DePue J. Multiple behavioral risk factor interventions in primary care. Summary of research evidence. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(2 Suppl):61–79.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Vallis M, Piccinini-Vallis H, Sharma AM, Freedhoff Y. Clinical review: modified 5 as: minimal intervention for obesity counseling in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(1):27–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Alexander SC, Cox ME, Boling Turer CL, Lyna P, Ostbye T, Tulsky JA, et al. Do the five A's work when physicians counsel about weight loss? Fam Med. 2011;43(3):179–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). Smoking, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity (SNAP): a population health guide to behavioural risk factors in general practice. Melbourne: RACGP. 2015.

  30. 30.

    Bartlem KM, Bowman JA, Freund M, Wye PM, McElwaine KM, Wolfenden L, et al. Care provision to prevent chronic disease by community Mental Health clinicians. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(6):762–70.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Bartlem K, Bowman J, Freund M, Wye P, Lecathelinais C, McElwaine K, et al. Acceptability and receipt of preventive Care for Chronic-Disease Health Risk Behaviors Reported by clients of community Mental Health services. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66(8):857–64.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Happell B, Platania-Phung C, Scott D. Are nurses in mental health services providing physical health care for people with serious mental illness? An Australian perspective. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2013;34(3):198–207.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Johnson K, Fry CL. The attitudes and practices of community managed mental health service staff in addressing physical health: findings from a targetted online survey. Adv Ment Health. 2013;11(2):163–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Chwastiak L, Cruza-Guet MC, Carroll-Scott A, Sernyak M, Ickovics J. Preventive counseling for chronic disease: missed opportunities in a community mental health center. Psychosomatics. 2013;54(4):328–35.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Johnson JL, Malchy LA, Ratner PA, Hossain S, Procyshyn RM, Bottorff JL, et al. Community mental healthcare providers' attitudes and practices related to smoking cessation interventions for people living with severe mental illness. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(2):289–95.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Robson D, Haddad M, Gray R, Gournay K. Mental health nursing and physical health care: a cross-sectional study of nurses' attitudes, practice, and perceived training needs for the physical health care of people with severe mental illness. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2013;22(5):409–17.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bailey JM, Bartlem KM, Wiggers JH, Wye PM, Stockings EAL, Hodder RK, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the provision of preventive care for modifiable chronic disease risk behaviours by mental health services. Prev Med Rep. 2019;100969.

  38. 38.

    Osborn DP, Nazareth I, Wright CA, King MB. Impact of a nurse-led intervention to improve screening for cardiovascular risk factors in people with severe mental illnesses. Phase-two cluster randomised feasibility trial of community mental health teams. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Druss BG, von Esenwein SA, Compton MT, Rask KJ, Zhao L, Parker RM. The primary care access referral, and evaluation (PCARE) study: a randomized trial of medical Care Management for Community Mental Health Settings. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(2):151–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    McKenna B, Furness T, Wallace E, Happell B, Stanton R, Platania-Phung C, et al. The effectiveness of specialist roles in mental health metabolic monitoring: a retrospective cross-sectional comparison study. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:234.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Rogers ES, Maru M, Kash-MacDonald M, Archer-Williams M, Hashemi L, Boardman J. A randomized clinical trial investigating the effect of a healthcare access model for individuals with severe psychiatric disabilities. Community Ment Health J. 2016.

  42. 42.

    Hoomans T, Severens JL. Economic evaluation of implementation strategies in health care. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):168.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Sutton M, Garfield-Birkbeck S, Martin G, Meacock R, Morris S, Sculpher M, et al. Health services and delivery research. Economic analysis of service and delivery interventions in health care. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2018.

  44. 44.

    Druss BG, von Esenwein SA, Compton MT, Zhao L, Leslie DL. Budget impact and sustainability of medical care management for persons with serious mental illnesses. Am J Psychiatry. 2011;168(11):1171–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Carvalho N, Jit M, Cox S, Yoong J, Hutubessy RCW. Capturing budget impact considerations within economic evaluations: a systematic review of economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries and a proposed assessment framework. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(1):79–90.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Jaime Caro J, Lee KM, Minchin M, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 budget impact analysis good practice II task force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5–14.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Fehily C, Bartlem K, Wiggers J, Wye P, Clancy R, Castle D, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of a healthy lifestyle clinician in addressing the chronic disease risk behaviours of community mental health clients: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):276.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Miller CL, Wakefield M, Roberts L. Uptake and effectiveness of the Australian telephone Quitline service in the context of a mass media campaign. Tob Control. 2003;12 Suppl 2:ii53–8.

  49. 49.

    O'Hara BJ, Phongsavan P, McGill B, Maxwell M, Ahmed N, ., Raheb S, et al. The NSW get healthy information and coaching service: the first five years. North Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health & Prevention Research Collaboration. University of Sydney; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Fehily C, Bartlem K, Wiggers J, Wye P, Clancy R, Castle D, et al. Effectiveness of embedding a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service in increasing preventive care provision: a randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. In press.

  51. 51.

    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):e1–37.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Park ER, Gareen IF, Japuntich S, Lennes I, Hyland K, DeMello S, et al. Primary care provider-delivered smoking cessation interventions and smoking cessation among participants in the National Lung Screening Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1509–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Husereau DDM, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E. Consolidated Health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Bartlem KM, Bowman J, Freund M, Wye PM, Barker D, McElwaine KM, et al. Effectiveness of an intervention in increasing the provision of preventive care by community mental health services: a non-randomized, multiple baseline implementation trial. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):46.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    National Health and Medical Research Council. Eat for Health: Australian Dietary Guidelines. Commonwealth of Australia; 2013.

  56. 56.

    National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Guidelines to reduce Health Risks from Drinking Alcohol. Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.

  57. 57.

    Department of Health. Australia's physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines for adults (18–64 years). Canberra: Australian Government; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs. National Tobacco Strategy 2012-2018. Commonwealth of Australia; 2012.

  59. 59.

    Drummond C, Coulton S, James D, Godfrey C, Parrott S, Baxter J, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention for alcohol use disorders in primary care: pilot study. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;195(5):448–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Godfrey C, Parrott S, Coleman T, Pound E. The cost-effectiveness of the English smoking treatment services: evidence from practice. Addiction. 2005;100(Suppl 2):70–83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Ritz LJ, Nissen MJ, Swenson KK, Farrell JB, Sperduto PW, Sladek ML, et al. Effects of advanced nursing care on quality of life and cost outcomes of women diagnosed with breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2000;27(6):923–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Dawes HA, Docherty T, Traynor I, Gilmore DH, Jardine AG, Knill-Jones R. Specialist nurse supported discharge in gynaecology: a randomised comparison and economic evaluation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;130(2):262–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

     Industrial relations commission of New South Wales. NSW Health service Health professionals (state) award 2017. 2017. https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/careers/conditions/Awards/health-professional.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2019.

  64. 64.

    Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O'Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Industrial relations commission of New South Wales. Health employees administrative staff (state) award 2018. 2018. https://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/ActivePDSDocuments/IB2017_022.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2019.

  66. 66.

    Telstra. Small buisness mobile phone plans. https://www.telstra.com.au/small-business/office-phones%20Viewed%2011/06/2018%20Plan%20S%2022c%20per%20call%20viewed%2012/09/2018. Accessed 24 Sep 2018.

  67. 67.

    Officeworks. Reflex Ultra A4 Paper White 500 Sheet 5 Pack. 2020. https://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/p/reflex-ultra-a4-paper-white-500-sheet-5-pack-spq09112c?cm_mmc=Google:SEM:Shopping:A4%20Copy%20Paper%2080gsm-_-SPQ09112C&cm_mmca1=NULL&cm_mmca3=conversion&cm_mmca9=columbus&CAWELAID=620015440000145647&CAGPSPN=pla&CAAGID=34671769842&CATCI=pla-297657953758&gclid=Cj0KCQjwu_jYBRD8ARIsAC3EGCJ3dpVwXUFXWol7sZkaw6TzZ73OnArvqCn-YqRiBoZt98brPyrxOhcaAl_sEALw_wcB. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

  68. 68.

    Officeworks. HP 804 Tri Colour Ink Catridge. 2020. https://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/p/hp-804-tri-colour-ink-cartridge-hp804tri. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

  69. 69.

    Officeworks. HP 804XL Ink Catridge Black. 2020. https://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/p/hp-804xl-ink-cartridge-black-hp804xlbk. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

  70. 70.

    Australian Taxation Office. Car Expenses. 2019. https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/income-and-deductions/deductions-you-can-claim/vehicle-and-travel-expenses/car-expenses/#centsperkm. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

  71. 71.

    Sandy Bull, Hunter New England Management Accountant. Personal communication. 2016.

  72. 72.

    Property Council of Australia. Commericial research: between the lines. Newcastle CBD Office Market Overview. Property Council of Australia; 2018.

  73. 73.

    Frischknecht BD, Eckert, C., Geweke, J. & Louviere, J. J. Incorporating prior information to overcome complete separation problems in discrete choice model estimation. 2013. https://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/i4c/docs/papers/wp11-007.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

  74. 74.

    Happell B, Platania-Phung C, Scott D. Proposed nurse-led initiatives in improving physical health of people with serious mental illness: a survey of nurses in mental health. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(7–8):1018–29.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Usher K, Park T, Foster K, Buettner P. A randomized controlled trial undertaken to test a nurse-led weight management and exercise intervention designed for people with serious mental illness who take second generation antipsychotics. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(7):1539–48.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Industrial relations commission of New South Wales. Public Health System Nurses' and Midwives' (state) award 2019. 2019. https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/careers/conditions/Awards/nurses.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

  77. 77.

    NSW Mental Health Comission. Living well: a strategic plan for mental health in NSW 2014–2024. Sydney: NSW Mental Health Comission. 2014.

  78. 78.

    Williams JM, Dwyer M, Verna M, Zimmermann MH, Gandhi KK, Galazyn M, et al. Evaluation of the CHOICES program of peer-to-peer tobacco education and advocacy. Community Ment Health J. 2011;47(3):243–51.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Marci J. Australia’s Health System: Some Issues and Challenges. J Health Med Econ. 2016;2(2).

  80. 80.

    Park AL, McDaid D, Weiser P, Von Gottberg C, Becker T, Kilian R. Examining the cost effectiveness of interventions to promote the physical health of people with mental health problems: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:787-.

  81. 81.

    Firth J, Siddiqi N, Koyanagi A, Siskind D, Rosenbaum S, Galletly C, et al. The lancet psychiatry commission: a blueprint for protecting physical health in people with mental illness. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(8):675–712.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Adamus W. A new method of job evaluation. 2009. p. 515–36.

  83. 83.

    Tudor R, McIntosh E. Applied Health Economics for Public Health Practice and Research,,: Oxford University Press; 2019.

  84. 84.

    Cohen DJ, Reynolds MR. Interpreting the results of cost-effectiveness studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(25):2119–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Himelhoch S, Daumit G. To whom do psychiatrists offer smoking-cessation counseling? Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160(12):2228–30.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Hrisos S, Eccles MP, Francis JJ, Dickinson HO, Kaner EFS, Beyer F, et al. Are there valid proxy measures of clinical behaviour? A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Prochaska JJ, Prochaska JO. A review of multiple Health behavior change interventions for primary prevention. Am J Lifestyle Med 2011;5(3):10.1177/1559827610391883.

  88. 88.

    Ritzwoller DP, Sukhanova AS, Glasgow RE, Strycker LA, King DK, Gaglio B, et al. Intervention costs and cost-effectiveness for a multiple-risk-factor diabetes self-management trial for Latinas: economic analysis of ¡viva Bien! Transl Behav Med. 2011;1(3):427–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    NSW Government Treasury. NSW Government Business Case Guidelines. TPP18-06. NSW Treasury. 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the staff and clients of the community mental health service and the CATI interviewers for their support and contribution to the project. We could also like to acknowledge Rhonda Patrick for her contribution as the specialist preventive care clinician.

Funding

This research was supported by The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre through the NHMRC partnership centre grant scheme (Grant ID: GNT9100001) with the Australian Government Department of Health, NSW Ministry of Health, Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Health, The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia (HCF) and the HCF Research Foundation; and by Hunter New England Population Health. The funders had no role in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Ms. Caitlin Fehily receives financial support through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Dr. Kate Bartlem is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship (#1142272).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Author CF, KB, JW, AW, and JB contributed to the concept and design of the randomised controlled trial. CF led the manuscript development. Authors CF, KB, JW, JB, AS, AW, RH, and RL contributed to the concept and design of the economic evaluation. Authors RL, CF, KC, AS, and KB contributed to statistical analysis. All authors contributed to the editing and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caitlin Fehily.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Human Research Ethics Committees of Hunter New England Health (Ref no. 16/02/17/4.09) and the University of Newcastle (Ref no. H-2016-0123) approved the research. This included approval for the verbal consent procedure, due to the practical impediments to obtaining written consent and to minimise potential disruption to mental health service provision. Consent was documented by telephone interviewers during the CATI and saved in a password protected file on a secure network.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors have completed the unified completing interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

Populated CONSORT 2010 checklist.

Additional file 2.

Populated CHEERS checklist.

Additional file 3.

Search strategy for literature review.

Additional file 4.

Breakdown of the specialist preventive care clinician’s activities.

Additional file 5.

Extended explanation of apportioning of costs.

Additional file 6.

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fehily, C., Ling, R., Searles, A. et al. An economic evaluation of a specialist preventive care clinician in a community mental health service: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 20, 405 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05204-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Chronic disease
  • Mental illness
  • Preventive care
  • Community mental health
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Risk behaviours