Search

Purpose: The early postnatal period is a time of increased risk for psychiatric admission. However, there is scope to further examine if this increase in risk extends to the entire perinatal period (pregnancy and first postnatal year), and how it compares to admission outside of the perinatal period., Methods: Data were linked across birth and hospital admission registers from July 2000 to December 2009. The study cohort, consisting of all pregnant and childbearing women with a psychiatric history, was divided into two groups: case women (at least one perinatal principal psychiatric admission in the study period) (38%) and comparison women (no perinatal principal psychiatric admissions) (62%). Outcomes were admission rate and length of stay adjusted for diagnosis, socio-demographic factors and timing of admission., Results: Antenatal and postnatal admissions rates were both higher than non-perinatal admission rates for case women for all diagnoses. There was little evidence that women with perinatal admissions were at an increased risk of admissions at other times. Socially disadvantaged women had significantly fewer and shorter admissions than their respective counterparts., Conclusions: The entire perinatal period is a time of increased risk for admission across the range of psychiatric disorders, compared to other times in a woman's childbearing years. Reduced admission rate and length of stay for socially disadvantaged women suggest lack of equity of access highlighting the importance of national perinatal mental health policy initiatives inclusive of disadvantaged groups., (© 2021. Crown.)

Purpose: Loneliness and social isolation can occur at all stages of the life course and are recognized as a global health priority. The aim of this study was to review existing literature on the economic costs associated with loneliness and social isolation as well as evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent or address loneliness and social isolation., Methods: A bibliographic database search was undertaken in Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase, supplemented by a grey literature search and a reference list search. Papers were included that were published in English language in peer-reviewed literature in the past 10 years, reporting costs of loneliness and/or social isolation or economic evaluations of interventions whose primary purpose is to reduce loneliness and/or social isolation, including return on investment (ROI) or social return on investment (SROI) studies., Results: In total, 12 papers were included in this review, consisting of four cost-of-illness studies, seven economic evaluations and five ROI or SROI studies. Most studies were conducted in the UK and focused on older adults. Due to the inconsistent use of the terms loneliness and social isolation, as well as their measurement, the true economic burden can only be estimated to a certain extent and the comparability across economic evaluations and ROI studies is limited., Conclusions: The paucity of evidence that is available primarily evaluating the economic costs of loneliness indicates that more research is needed to assess the economic burden and identify cost-effective interventions to prevent or address loneliness and social isolation.