Cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment for individuals who present to hospital following self-harm in England: a model-based retrospective analysis - McDaid, David; Park, A-La; Tsiachristas, Apostolos; Brand, Fiona; Casey, Deborah; Clements, Caroline; Geulayov, Galit; Kapur, Nav; Ness, Jennifer; Waters, Keith; Hawton, Keith (medRxiv, 2021)
Aims There are substantial costs to health care systems and society associated with self-harm. Moreover, individuals who have presented to hospital following self-harm have a much higher risk of suicide within the following year compared to the general population. National guidance in England recommends psychosocial assessment when presenting to hospital following self-harm but adherence to this guidance is variable. There is some limited evidence suggesting that psychosocial assessment is associated with lower risk of subsequent presentation to hospital for self-harm. The aim of this study was to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment for hospital-presenting self-harm in England compared to no assessment.Methods We constructed a three-state four-cycle Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment after self-harm compared with no assessment over two years. Data on risk of subsequent self-harm and hospital costs of treating different types of self-harm were drawn from prior analysis of the Multicentre Study of Self-Harm in England, while estimates of the effectiveness of psychosocial assessment on risk of self-harm, quality of life impacts and other costs were supplemented by a literature review. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in terms of cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained and parameter uncertainty was addressed in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Costs were reported in 2020 UK Pounds from the healthcare and societal perspective (that included productivity loss) and a discount rate of 3.5% was applied to future costs and QALYs.Results The cost per QALY gained from psychosocial assessment was £10,962 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) £15,538 - £9,219) from the NHS perspective, and £9,980 (95% UI £14,538, £6,938) from the societal perspective. Baseline results were generally robust to changes in model assumptions; the relative risk of self-harm after psychosocial assessment would have to be 0.73 or lower for the ICER to be below £20,000. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that the probability of the ICER to be below a £20,000 threshold was 78%, rising to 91% with a £30,000 threshold.Conclusions Psychosocial assessment as implemented in the English NHS is likely to be cost-effective. This evidence could support adherence to NICE guidelines. However, further evidence is still needed about the precise impact of psychosocial assessment on self-harm repetition and costs to individuals affected by self-harm and their families beyond immediate hospital stay.Competing Interest StatementNK and KH are members of the Department of Health and Social Care's National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group for England. NK chaired the committees developing the NICE Guidelines for Self-Harm (Longer Term Management) 2012 and the NICE Quality Standards on Self-Harm 2013; NK is currently topic advisor for the new NICE guidelines on self-harm and Chair of the Guideline Committee for the NICE Depression Guidelines. NK works with NHS England on national quality improvement initiatives for suicide and self-harm. The views expressed in this article are the authors' own and not those of the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England or NICE. No other authors have conflicts of interest to declare.Funding StatementThe Multicentre Study of Self-harm in England is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. No other financial support was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The three research sites involved in the Multicentre Study of self-harm have approvals to collect data on self-harm for their local monitoring systems of self-harm and for multicentre projects. The monitoring systems in Oxford and Derby have received their approval from local national health service research ethics committees (Oxford: South Central Berkshire REC, 08/H0607/7; Derby: Derbyshire REC, 06/Q2401/84) while self-harm monitoring in Manchester is part of a local clinical audit system ratified by the local research ethics committee (South Manchester REC). The three monitoring systems are fully compliant with the Data Protection Act (1998) and have approval under Section 251 of the National Health Service (NHS) Act (2006) to collect patient-identifiable data without explicit patient consent.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesIndividual patient-level from the Multicentre Study of self-harm will not be available due to confidentiality and data-sharing agreements in place.