Search

Background: Mental health acute crisis episodes are associated with high inpatient costs. Self-management interventions may reduce readmission by enabling individuals to manage their condition. Delivery of such interventions by Peer Support Workers (PSWs) may be cost-effective. CORE, a randomized control trial of a PSW self-management intervention compared to usual care, found a significant reduction in admissions to acute mental healthcare for participants receiving the intervention. This paper aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over 12 months from a mental health service perspective. Analysis methods of increasing complexity were used to account for data missingness and distribution. Methods: Participants were recruited from six crisis resolution teams in England from 12 March 2014 to 3 July 2015 (trial registration ISRCTN: 01027104). Resource use was collected from patient records at baseline and 12 months. The EQ-5D-3L was collected at baseline and 4 and 18 months, and linear interpolation was used to calculate 12-month values for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The primary analysis of adjusted mean incremental costs and QALYs for complete cases are calculated separately using OLS regression. Secondly, a complete-case non-parametric two-stage bootstrap (TSB) was performed. The impacts of missing data and skewed cost data were explored using multiple imputation using chained equations and general linear models, respectively. Results: Four hundred and forty-one participants were recruited to CORE; 221 randomized to the PSW intervention and 220 to usual care plus workbook. The probability that the PSW intervention was cost-effective compared with the workbook plus usual care control at 12 months varied with the method used, and ranged from 57% to 96% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Discussion: There was a minimum 57% chance that the intervention was cost-effective compared to the control using 12-month costs and QALYs. The probability varied by 40% when methods were employed to account for the relationship between costs and QALYs, but which restricted the sample to those who provided both complete cost and utility data. Caution should therefore be applied when selecting methods for the evaluation of healthcare interventions that aim to increase precision but may introduce bias if missing data are heavily unbalanced between costs and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health care interventions are increasingly being delivered through digital technologies, offering major opportunities for delivering more health gains from scarce health care resources. Digital health interventions (DHIs) raise distinct challenges for economic evaluations compared with drugs and medical devices, not least due to their interacting, evolving features. The implications of the distinctive nature of DHIs for the methodological choices underpinning their economic evaluation is not well understood. This paper provides an in-depth discussion of distinct features of DHIs and how they might impact the design, measurement, analysis and reporting of cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside both randomised and non-randomised studies. These include aspects related to choice of comparator, costs and benefits assessment, study perspective and type of economic analysis. We argue that typical methodological standpoints, such as taking a health service perspective, focusing on health-related benefits and adopting cost-utility analyses, as typically adopted in the economic evaluation of non-digital technologies (pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices), are unlikely to be appropriate for DHIs. We illustrate how these methodological aspects can be appropriately addressed in an evaluation of a digitally supported, remote rehabilitation programme for patients with Long Covid in England. We highlight several methodological considerations for improving practice and areas where further methodological work is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the cost-effectiveness of treating epilepsy with anti-epileptic medicines in autistic children, looking at impacts on healthcare providers (in England, Ireland, Italy and Spain) and children's families (in Ireland). We find carbamazepine to be the most cost-effective drug to try first in children with newly diagnosed focal seizures. For England and Spain, oxcarbazepine is the most cost-effective treatment when taken as additional treatment for those children whose response to monotherapy is suboptimal. In Ireland and Italy, gabapentin is the most cost-effective option. Our additional scenario analysis presents the aggregate cost to families with autistic children who are being treated for epilepsy: this cost is considerably higher than healthcare provider expenditure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most water fluoridation studies were conducted on children before the widespread introduction of fluoride toothpastes. There is a lack of evidence that can be applied to contemporary populations, particularly adolescents and adults. Objective: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults, using a natural experiment design. Design: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected National Health Service dental claims (FP17) data. Setting: National Health Service primary dental care: general dental practices, prisons, community dental services, domiciliary settings, urgent/out-of-hours and specialised referral-only services. Participants: Dental patients aged 12 years and over living in England (n = 6,370,280). Intervention and comparison: Individuals exposed to drinking water with a fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were matched to non-exposed individuals on key characteristics using propensity scores. Outcome measures: Primary: number of National Health Service invasive dental treatments (restorations/'fillings' and extractions) received per person between 2010 and 2020. Secondary: decayed, missing and filled teeth, missing teeth, inequalities, cost effectiveness and return on investment. Data sources: National Health Service Business Services Authority dental claims data. Water quality monitoring data. Primary outcome: Predicted mean number of invasive dental treatments was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (incidence rate ratio 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971), a difference of −0.173 invasive dental treatments (95% CI −0.185 to −0.161). This magnitude of effect is smaller than what most stakeholders we engaged with (n = 50/54) considered meaningful. Secondary outcomes: Mean decayed, missing and filled teeth were 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group, with a difference of −0.212 decayed, missing and filled teeth (95% CI −0.229 to −0.194). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth per person (0.006, 95% CI −0.008 to 0.021). There was no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in treatments received or missing teeth; however, decayed, missing and filled teeth data did not demonstrate a typical inequalities gradient. Optimal water fluoridation in England in 2010–20 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excluding original setup costs). Mean National Health Service treatment costs for fluoridated patients 2010–20 were 5.5% lower per person, by £22.26 (95% CI −£23.09 to −£21.43), and patients paid £7.64 less in National Health Service dental charges per person (2020 prices). Limitations: Pragmatic, observational study with potential for non-differential errors of misclassification in fluoridation assignment and outcome measurement and residual and/or unmeasured confounding. Decayed, missing and filled teeth data have not been validated. Water fluoridation cost estimates are based on existing programmes between 2010 and 2020, and therefore do not include the potentially significant capital investment required for new programmes. Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects, which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence of a reduction in social inequalities. Existing water fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower National Health Service treatment costs. These relatively small savings should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes. Future work: National Health Service dental data are a valuable resource for research. Further validation and measures to improve quality and completeness are warranted. Trial registrations: This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary: Fluoride is a natural mineral that prevents tooth decay. It is added to some drinking water and toothpastes to improve dental health. Water with fluoride added is known as 'optimally fluoridated'. Most research on water fluoridation was carried out before fluoride was added to toothpastes in the 1970s and only included children. We wanted to know if water fluoridation still produced large reductions in tooth decay, now that decay levels are much lower because of fluoride in toothpaste. We also wanted to look at its effect on adults and teenagers. Dental patients we spoke to told us they worried about needing treatment with the 'drill', or 'injection', losing their teeth and paying for their dental care. To see if water fluoridation helped with these concerns, we compared the National Health Service dental records of 6.4 million adults and teenagers who received optimally fluoridated or non-optimally fluoridated water in England between 2010 and 2020. We found water fluoridation made a very small difference to each person. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of NHS fillings and extractions was 3% lower per person for those who received optimally fluoridated water. We found no difference in the number of teeth lost per person and no strong sign that fluoridation reduced differences in dental health between rich and poor areas. Between 2010 and 2020, the cost of optimal water fluoridation was £10.30 per person (not including setup costs). National Health Service dental patients who received optimally fluoridated water cost the National Health Service £22.26 (5.5%) less and paid £7.64 (2%) less per person in National Health Service dental charges over the 10 years. The benefits we found are much smaller than in the past, when toothpastes did not contain fluoride. The cost to set up a new water fluoridation programme can be high. Communities may need to consider if these smaller benefits would still outweigh the costs. Scientific summary: Background: There is a lack of contemporary evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation in populations who are also using fluoride toothpastes and have significantly lower levels of decay than when most of the research on water fluoridation was carried out. In their 2002 review of water fluoridation, the UK Medical Research Council identified several priority areas for future research, in particular: the effect of water fluoridation on the dental health of adults the effects of fluoridation on health and well-being beyond the usual measures of decayed, missing or filled teeth the economic impacts of water fluoridation how the effects of water fluoridation vary with social class. Conducting research on the effects of water fluoridation in adults involves significant methodological challenges. This has resulted in a paucity of evidence and recommendations for research that have not been addressed in 20 years. The present study has been designed to contribute to the evidence base in a pragmatic and cost-efficient way, using routinely collected NHS dental claims data. During our initial public engagement work, patients and the public told us that preventing dental treatment, particularly 'the drill' or 'injection', was a key impact that they would hope water fluoridation would produce. Other impacts were not losing teeth to extraction and avoiding costly dental charges. This feedback is reflected in our choice of primary and secondary outcome measures. Aim: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health. Primary objective: Impact of water fluoridation on NHS invasive dental treatments (fillings, extractions). Secondary objectives: Impact on oral health [number of teeth and caries experience, missing and filled teeth (DMFT)]. Impact on social inequalities. Cost effectiveness and return on investment (ROI). Study inclusion criteria: Adults and adolescents aged 12 years and over who had attended an NHS dental practice in England within the last 10 years. Adolescents were included in the study cohort because they are likely to have all of their permanent, adult teeth. Patient confirmed as a unique individual using the combination of NHS Business Service Authority (BSA) identifier (initial, surname, gender, date of birth) and NHS number. Study exclusion criteria: Individuals who did not have at least two episodes of dental attendance within the 10-year observation period. The reason for this was to provide at least two data points on location of residence (to assign fluoridation exposure). Cohort setting: The study population data set was supplied by NHS BSA , which processes payment claims for NHS for dentists. The NHS BSA data retention period is 10 years. National Health Service primary dental care is delivered in a range of settings and types of services, including: general dental practices (high street practices) prison dental services community dental services (special care referral service, which treats patients with additional needs, including medical conditions, disabilities, homelessness or drug use) domiciliary settings (home visits for housebound patients) urgent/out-of-hours services for patients without a regular dentist specialised referral-only services such as sedation or oral surgery. Data on care delivered in all of the above services are collected by NHS BSA. Selection of the study population: Selection of the study population was carried out on 21 October 2020, by NHS BSA. Individual dental treatment claim entries for England and Wales were screened for linkage and selection by NHS BSA in the following order: Identifiable data: Withdrawn or 'no information' claims (FP17s) were dropped. Claims with no 1 : 1 match between NHS number and NHS BSA ID were dropped. Claims containing only orthodontic care were dropped. Patients whose NHS number was on 'NHS national data opt-out list' were dropped. Anonymised data: Patients who had attended only once were dropped. Patients aged under 12 years were dropped. Patients whose first recorded address was not in England were dropped. Patients whose first course of treatment was prior to 22 November 2010 were dropped. The study population data set, securely transferred to the University of Manchester, included anonymised data on 17,855,239 unique individuals. Exposure assignment: Water fluoride sample data (mg F/l) were obtained from water suppliers in England under the Environmental Information Regulations (2004) and converted from water supply zones to lower super output areas (LSOAs) using mapping in statistical software 'R'. This resulted in a record of annual mean water fluoride concentrations by LSOA for every year between 2010 and 2020. Individuals within the study population data set were then assigned an individual water fluoride exposure (mg F/l) by combining their residential history (recorded in the NHS BSA dental claims data set) with the annual concentration of fluoride in the drinking water of the LSOAs they lived in between 2010 and 2020. Individuals exposed to drinking water with a grand mean fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were assigned to the 'optimally fluoridated' group, and those with a grand mean of < 0.7 mg F/l were assigned to the 'sub/non-optimally fluoridated' group. Propensity score matching: Individuals in the optimally fluoridated group were matched to individuals in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group using propensity scores. The baseline characteristics used to create the propensity scores were selected using subject matter knowledge and theory to include all hypothesised confounders and important outcome predictors. To inform the selection of these variables, causal assumptions were made explicit using directed acyclic graphs. Baseline characteristics for propensity score estimation and matching were based on data recorded at the patient's first course of treatment: sex age ethnicity deprivation decile NHS exemption status rural–urban classification number of units of dental activities (UDAs) commissioned per person with the patient's local authority of residence dental practice contract type dental practice deprivation decile. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression, and matching was carried out using three specifications of nearest neighbour matching (one-to-one, variable ratio and variable ratio with a 0.25 calliper). The resulting matched data set which best met our pre-specified criteria regarding overall sample size, balance on baseline characteristics and ability to estimate the average treatment effect in the treated group was taken forwards for further analysis. Analysis of health effects: The effect of optimal water fluoridation on primary and secondary clinical outcomes was estimated using negative binomial regression models, including matching weights and using cluster-robust standard errors. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the mean number of invasive dental treatments received, the mean number of DMFTs and the mean number of missing teeth by fluoridation group. To determine whether there was a differential effect of water fluoridation according to deprivation, we included patient deprivation decile [Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015] as an interaction term. 'Clinical' relevance of primary outcome: We engaged with 54 public and professional stakeholders from across the UK through 3 online workshops to explore views on what might be considered a relevant/practically significant effect of optimal water fluoridation on our primary outcome. We identified a wide range of views and some suggestions that dentists felt smaller reductions were meaningful, compared to non-dentists, but most contributors felt a reduction of at least one invasive NHS dental treatment per person over 10 years would be needed to be considered meaningful (a 16% relative reduction in the workshop scenario). Health economic evaluation: The health economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness and a ROI analysis. The time horizon was 2010–20, and the perspective was public sector payors [NHS, Public Health England (PHE) and local authorities]. Operating and capital costs of water fluoridation for England were supplied by PHE for the financial years 2013–9, with mean annual costs used for 2010–2. All costs are reported in 2020 prices. National Health Service dental care utilisation and patient charges were contained within the study population data set provided by NHS BSA , and an average UDA price for England supplied by NHS BSA [under the Freedom of Information Act (2000)] was used to calculate NHS costs. Differences in costs between patients from optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups were estimated using a generalised linear model (GLM) with a log-link and a gamma distribution to account for right-skewed cost data. Cost effectiveness was based on the primary study outcome, assessed as the additional cost per avoided episode of invasive dental treatment [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)]. We also calculated total NHS dental charges paid by patients in the optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups. Water fluoridation cannot be provided on an individual basis, therefore per-patient cost effectiveness and ROI estimates were extrapolated from our sample to the estimated population of regular users of NHS dental services using a range of scenarios. Results: The study population data set (the full cohort) supplied by NHS BSA included records relating to 17,855,239 unique individuals. After propensity score matching (using nearest neighbour, one-to-three variable ratio), the matched cohort contained data on 6,370,280 individuals: 4,777,710 in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group and 1,592,570 in the optimally fluoridated group. Primary objective: The rate of invasive dental treatments in the optimally fluoridated group was 3% lower than that of the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971). There was a predicted mean difference of 0.173 fewer invasive dental treatments per person (95% CI 0.185 to 0.161) in the optimally fluoridated group compared to the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group. During our stakeholder engagement work, only 4 of 54 contributors considered this magnitude of reduction to be meaningful. Secondary objectives: Oral health: Mean DMFT in the optimally fluoridated group was 2% lower than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.984, 95% CI 0.983 to 0.985). There was a predicted mean difference of 0.212 fewer DMFTs (95% CI 0.229 fewer to 0.194 fewer) in the optimally fluoridated group compared to the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group. We found no significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth between the optimally fluoridated group and the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 1.001, 95% CI 0.999 to 1.003). The negative binomial model predicted a mean difference of 0.006 more missing teeth in the fluoridated group, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of no effect (95% CI 0.008 fewer to 0.021 more). Effect of water fluoridation on social inequalities: In all deciles, the predicted number of invasive treatments was lower in the optimally fluoridated group than the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group, but the size of the reductions was very small. The largest predicted reduction of 0.337 fewer invasive dental treatments per person (95% CI 0.371 fewer to 0.302 fewer) was in the most deprived decile (IMD 1), a relative reduction of 5.3%. The relationship between patient deprivation and DMFT was unclear and did not demonstrate a social inequality gradient in the expected direction. Therefore, we are unable to conclude whether water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in DMFT. Small differences were evident in each decile, but the direction of effect was not consistent. Small differences in the number of missing teeth per person in the optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups were evident in each decile of deprivation, but the direction of effect was not consistent. Overall, we could find no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced socioeconomic disparities in oral health in adult and adolescent users of NHS dental services. Health economic results: Water fluoridation costs: Total expenditure on water fluoridation between 2010 and 2019 was estimated to be £46,791,388. The cost of optimal water fluoridation per person over 10 years was estimated to be £10.30. No new water fluoridation programmes were commissioned between 2010 and 2020; therefore, our cost estimates for water fluoridation do not include setup costs, which are highly site-specific and can be significant. National Health Service dental treatment and patient charges: In the GLM , the marginal effects estimate revealed a saving in NHS treatment costs for optimally fluoridated patients over the study period of £22.26 per person (95% CI £21.43 to £23.09). This represents a relative reduction in costs to the NHS of 5.5% per person between 2010 and 2020. Patients in the optimally fluoridated group paid £7.64 less (2%) in total NHS dental charges than patients in the non-optimally fluoridated group between 2010 and 2020. Population-level cost effectiveness and return on investment: Water fluoridation is a whole-population intervention, which cannot be implemented on a per-person basis. In terms of cost effectiveness and ROI, it is important to consider the potential size of the population to whom our within-sample (per person) findings may apply. In the scenario thought to be most likely by our steering committee (that 62.9% of the population aged 12 years can be expected to use NHS dental services at least twice in 10 years), we estimate that: The cost to avoid one invasive dental treatment (the ICER) was £94.55. The predicted ROI for water fluoridation in England between November 2010 and October 2020 was estimated to be £16,884,595 (a 36% return on the investment). Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. Slightly lower dental service utilisation produced a positive ROI during the period of observation, but it must be remembered that the cost estimates for water fluoridation did not include the initial set-up of the programmes. Where new capital investment in water fluoridation is required, the estimated project costs should be evaluated against the estimated savings contained within this report and the projected lifespan of the infrastructure. Whether the case for water fluoridation programmes can be based solely on a predicted ROI rather than meaningful health improvements may need to be considered by stakeholders. Recommendations for research: NHS primary care dental data are a potentially valuable resource for research, surveillance and epidemiology. Consideration should be given as to how to develop this resource further. Suggestions include: commissioning enhanced data collection through a network of dental providers (similar to medical G.P. Clinical Practice Research Datalink network); mandatory use of NHS numbers, recording the reason for treatment (caries, periodontal disease, trauma, repair of old restoration); steps to increase the completeness of patient ethnicity data and validation of the DMFT data. Routinely collected water quality monitoring data should be made publicly available. A central, annually updated database of water fluoride concentrations (mg F/l) at a small area level is required to support future research and monitoring of water fluoridation. To broaden the evidence base for triangulation, the effect of water fluoridation on the dental health of adults should be investigated in any future national dental epidemiology surveys. To determine if the estimated cost to avoid one invasive dental treatment (the ICER) represents good value for money, further work is required to identify a threshold level for 'good value' for this outcome. Trial registrations: This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental health rehabilitation services provide specialist treatment to people with particularly severe and complex problems. In 2018, the Care Quality Commission reported that over half the 4,400 mental health inpatient rehabilitation beds in England were provided by the independent sector. They raised concerns that the length of stay and cost of independent sector care was double that of the NHS and that their services tended to be provided much further from people's homes. However, there has been no research comparing the two sectors and we therefore do not know if these concerns are justified. The ACER Study (Assessing the Clinical and cost-Effectiveness of inpatient mental health Rehabilitation services provided by the NHS and independent sector) is a national programme of research in England, funded from 2021 to 2026, that aims to investigate differences in inpatient mental health rehabilitation provided by the NHS and independent sector in terms of: patient characteristics; service quality; patient, carer and staff experiences; clinical and cost effectiveness. Methods: ACER comprises a:1) detailed survey of NHS and independent sector inpatient mental health rehabilitation services across England; 2) qualitative investigation of patient, family, staff and commissioners' experiences of the two sectors; 3) cohort study comparing clinical outcomes in the two sectors over 18 months; 4) comprehensive national comparison of inpatient service use in the two sectors, using instrumental variable analysis of routinely collected healthcare data over 18 months; 5) health economic evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of the two sectors. In Components 3 and 4, our primary outcome is 'successful rehabilitation' defined as a) being discharged from the inpatient rehabilitation unit without readmission and b) inpatient service use over the 18 months. Discussion: The ACER study will deliver the first empirical comparison of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of NHS and independent sector inpatient mental health rehabilitation services. Trial registration: ISRCTN17381762 retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Adolescent mental health (AMH) needs in England have increased dramatically and needs exceed treatment availability. This study undertook a comparative assessment of the health and economic return on investment (ROI) of interventions to prevent and treat mental disorders among adolescents (10–19 years) and examined intervention affordability and readiness. Methods Interventions were identified following a review of published and grey literature. A Markov model followed a simulated adolescent cohort to estimate implementation costs and health, education, and economic benefits. Intervention affordability was assessed, comparing annual cost per adolescent with NHS England per capita spending, and an expert panel assessed intervention readiness using a validated framework. Results Over 10- and 80-year horizons, interventions to treat mild anxiety and mild depression were most cost-effective, with the highest individual lifetime ROI (GBP 5822 GBP 1 and GBP 257: GBP 1). Preventing anxiety and depression was most affordable and 'implementation ready' and offered the highest health and economic benefits. A priority package (anxiety and depression prevention; mild anxiety and mild depression treatment) would avert 5 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYS) and achieve an ROI of GBP 15: GBP 1 over 10 years or 11.5 million DALYs (ROI of GBP 55: GBP 1) over 80 years. Conclusion The economic benefits from preventing and treating common adolescent mental disorders equivalent to 25% of NHS England's annual spending in 2021 over 10 years and 91% over 80 years. Preventing and early treatment for anxiety and depression had the highest ROIs and strong implementation readiness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In contrast to evidence for interventions supporting victim/survivors of domestic violence and abuse (DVA), the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes for reduction of abuse is uncertain. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a perpetrator programme for men. Methods: Pragmatic two-group individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation. Five centres in southwest England and South Wales aim to recruit 316 (reduced from original target of 366) male domestic abuse perpetrators. These will be randomised 2:1 to a community-based domestic abuse perpetrator programme (DAPP) or usual care comparator with 12-month follow-up. Female partners/ex-partners will be invited to join the study. The intervention for men comprises 23 weekly sessions of a group programme delivered in voluntary sector domestic abuse services. The intervention for female partners/ex-partners is one-to-one support from a safety worker. Men allocated to usual care receive no intervention; however, they are free to access other services. Their partners/ex-partners will be signposted to support services. Data is collected at baseline, and 4, 8 and 12 months' follow-up. The primary outcome is men's self-reported abusive behaviour measured by the Abusive Behaviour Inventory (ABI-29) at 12 months. Secondary measures include physical and mental health status and resource use alongside the abuse measure ABI (ABI-R) for partners/ex-partners and criminal justice contact for men. A mixed methods process evaluation and qualitative study will explore mechanisms of effectiveness, judge fidelity to the intervention model using interviews and group observations. The economic evaluation, over a 1-year time horizon from three perspectives (health and social care, public sector and society), will employ a cost-consequences framework reporting costs alongside economic outcomes (Quality-Adjusted Life Years derived from EQ-5D-5L, SF-12 and CHU-9D, and ICECAP-A) as well as the primary and other secondary outcomes. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence of the (cost)effectiveness of a DAPP. The embedded process evaluation will further insights in the experiences and contexts of participants and their journey through a perpetrator programme, and the study will seek to address the omission in other studies of economic evaluations. Trial registration: ISRCTN15804282, April 1, 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate whether adding financial incentives to usual care is cost‐effective in encouraging pregnant women to quit tobacco smoking, compared with usual care alone. Design: Cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost–utility analysis (CUA) from a health‐care provider's perspective, embedded in the Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT III). Long‐term analyses were conducted from the same perspective, using an existing Markov model over a life‐time horizon. Setting: Seven maternity smoking cessation sites in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. Participants: In the short‐term analysis, CPIT III participants were assessed: women 16 years or older, self‐reporting as smokers, fewer than 24 weeks pregnant and English‐speaking (n = 944). The same population was used for the life‐time analysis, plus their infants. Measurements Costs included financial incentive vouchers and postage, cessation support and nicotine replacement therapy and neonatal stays. The outcome measure was a biochemically verified quit rate for the CEA and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) for CUA. Costs are presented in 2020 GBP sterling (£). Data for the life‐time analysis came from the trial and were combined with data from published literature embedded in the model, reporting incremental cost per quitter and QALY. A 3.5% discount rate was applied. Findings The short‐term incremental cost per quitter was £4400 and cost per QALY was £150 000. Results of sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. The long‐term analysis combined costs and outcomes for mother and infants; results showed a cost saving of £37 [95% confidence interval (CI]) = £35–106] and increase in QALYs of 0.171 (95% CI = 0.124–0.229). These findings indicate that, over a life‐time, financial incentives are cost‐saving and improve health outcomes. Conclusions: In the United Kingdom, offering up to £400 financial incentives, in addition to usual care, to support pregnant women to stop smoking appears to be highly cost‐effective over a life‐time for mother and infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The care home staff influenza vaccination rate in England is significantly lower than the 75% World Health Organisation recommendation. This represents a substantial potential for resident harm. Barriers to staff vaccination stem from individual and organisational levels. Existing interventions address some but not all barriers and are not underpinned by behavioural science theory. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to improve care home staff vaccination rates compared to routine practice. Set in care homes with both nursing and residential focus, and a range of ownership status, only homes providing long stay care to older people with a staff vaccination rate below 40% are eligible to participate. Participation expressions of interest will be sought using a variety of approaches prior to seeking consent. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of staff vaccinated at 6 months, with secondary outcome measures being proportion vaccinated at 3 months, numbers of staff sick days, general practitioner and nurse visits to care home, care home resident hospitalisations and mortality. Based on the assumptions that the mean cluster (care home) size is 54 staff, a coefficient of variation of 0.48, control vaccination rate is 55%, intervention 75%, intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.2 and with 90% power, and 20% attrition, we require 39 care homes per arm. Blocked randomisation will be at the level of care home, stratified by the proportion of non-white care home staff, and implemented by Norwich Clinical Trials Unit. The intervention comprises co-designed information videos and posters, provision of in-house staff vaccination clinics, and incentive scheme and monthly data collection on trial outcomes. Beyond usual practice, the control arm will additionally contribute monthly data. Data will be collected at the start, monthly and at 6 months, and analysis will be blind to allocation. Statistical analysis will use the intention-to-treat principle with the difference in vaccination rates between groups compared using a random effect logistic regression model at the staff-level. This will be the first study to use a theory-informed intervention designed to comprehensively address identified barriers to care home staff influenza vaccination. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 22. Secondary identifiers: R209939, IRAS 316820, CPMS 53812. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that may cause psychosocial distress. There is evidence that topical treatment combinations, chemical peels and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) are effective for mild‐to‐moderate acne, while topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy are most effective for moderate‐to‐severe acne. Effective treatments have varying costs. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England considers cost‐effectiveness when producing national clinical, public health and social care guidance. Aim: To assess the cost‐effectiveness of treatments for mild‐to‐moderate and moderate‐to‐severe acne to inform relevant NICE guidance. Methods: A decision–analytical model compared costs and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) of effective topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for mild‐to‐moderate and moderate‐to‐severe acne, from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. Effectiveness data were derived from a network meta‐analysis. Other model input parameters were based on published sources, supplemented by expert opinion. Results: All of the assessed treatments were more cost‐effective than treatment with placebo (general practitioner visits without active treatment). For mild‐to‐moderate acne, topical treatment combinations and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) were most cost‐effective. For moderate‐to‐severe acne, topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, and oral isotretinoin were the most cost‐effective. Results showed uncertainty, as reflected in the wide confidence intervals around mean treatment rankings. Conclusion: A range of treatments are cost‐effective for the management of acne. Well‐conducted studies are needed to examine the long‐term clinical efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of the full range of acne treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are long‐standing concerns that people experiencing homelessness may not recover well if left unsupported after a hospital stay. This study reports on a study investigating the cost‐effectiveness of three different 'in patient care coordination and discharge planning' configurations for adults experiencing homelessness who are discharged from hospitals in England. The first configuration provided a clinical and housing in‐reach service during acute care and discharge coordination but with no 'step‐down' care. The second configuration provided clinical and housing in‐reach, discharge coordination and 'step‐down' intermediate care. The third configuration consisted of housing support workers providing in‐reach and discharge coordination as well as step‐down care. These three configurations were each compared with 'standard care' (control, defined as one visit by the homelessness health nurse before discharge during which patients received an information leaflet on local services). Multiple sources of data and multi‐outcome measures were adopted to assess the cost utility of hospital discharge service delivery for the NHS and broader public perspective. Details of 354 participants were collated on service delivery costs (salary, on‐costs, capital, overheads and 'hotel' costs, advertising and other indirect costs), the economic consequences for different public services (e.g. NHS, social care, criminal justice, housing, etc.) and health utilities (quality‐adjusted‐life‐years, QALYs). Findings were complex across the configurations, but, on the whole, there was promising evidence suggesting that, with delivery costs similar to those reported for bed‐based intermediate care, step‐down care secured better health outcomes and improved cost‐effectiveness (compared with usual care) within NICE cost‐effectiveness recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Empirical estimates of health system opportunity costs have been suggested as a basis for the cost-effectiveness threshold to use in Health Technology Assessment. Econometric methods have been used to estimate these in several countries based on data on spending and mortality. This study examines empirical evidence on four issues: non-linearity of the relationship between spending and mortality; the inclusion of outcomes other than mortality; variation in the efficiency with which expenditures generate health outcomes; and the relationship among efficiency, mortality rates and outcome elasticities. Methods: Quantile Regression is used to examine non-linearities in the relationship between mortality and health expenditures along the mortality distribution. Data Envelopment Analysis extends the approach, using multiple measures of health outcomes to measure efficiency. These are applied to health expenditure data from 151 geographical units (Primary Care Trusts) of the National Health Service in England, across eight different clinical areas (Programme Budget Categories), for 3 fiscal years from 2010/11 to 2012/13. Results: The results suggest differences in efficiency levels across geographical units and clinical areas as to how health resources generate outcomes, which indicates the capacity to adjust to a decrease in health expenditure without affecting health outcomes. Moreover, efficient units have lower absolute levels of mortality elasticity to health expenditure than inefficient ones. Conclusions: The policy of adopting thresholds based on estimates of a single system-wide cost-effectiveness threshold assumes a relationship between expenditure and health outcomes that generates an opportunity cost estimate which applies to the whole system. Our evidence of variations in that relationship and therefore in opportunity costs suggests that adopting a single threshold may exacerbate the efficiency and equity concerns that such thresholds are designed to counter. In most health care systems, many decisions about provision are not made centrally. Our analytical approach to understanding variability in opportunity cost can help policy makers target efficiency improvements and set realistic targets for local and clinical area health improvements from increased expenditure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychiatric mother and baby units (MBUs) are recommended for severe perinatal mental illness, but effectiveness compared with other forms of acute care remains unknown.Aims: We hypothesised that women admitted to MBUs would be less likely to be readmitted to acute care in the 12 months following discharge, compared with women admitted to non-MBU acute care (generic psychiatric wards or crisis resolution teams (CRTs)).Method: Quasi-experimental cohort study of women accessing acute psychiatric care up to 1 year postpartum in 42 healthcare organisations across England and Wales. Primary outcome was readmission within 12 months post-discharge. Propensity scores were used to account for systematic differences between MBU and non-MBU participants. Secondary outcomes included assessment of cost-effectiveness, experience of services, unmet needs, perceived bonding, observed mother-infant interaction quality and safeguarding outcome.Results: Of 279 women, 108 (39%) received MBU care, 62 (22%) generic ward care and 109 (39%) CRT care only. The MBU group (n = 105) had similar readmission rates to the non-MBU group (n = 158) (aOR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.04, P = 0.29; an absolute difference of -5%, 95% CI -14 to 4%). Service satisfaction was significantly higher among women accessing MBUs compared with non-MBUs; no significant differences were observed for any other secondary outcomes.Conclusions: We found no significant differences in rates of readmission, but MBU advantage might have been masked by residual confounders; readmission will also depend on quality of care after discharge and type of illness. Future studies should attempt to identify the effective ingredients of specialist perinatal in-patient and community care to improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the cost‐effectiveness of the WISDOM self‐management intervention for type 2 diabetes compared with care as usual. Design: We performed a difference‐in‐differences analysis to estimate differences in risk factors for diabetes complications between people in the WISDOM group (n = 25, 276) and a control group (n = 15, 272) using GP records. A decision analytic model was then used to extrapolate differences in risk factors into costs and outcomes in the long term. Setting: Participating GP practices in West Hampshire and Southampton, UK. Participants: All people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes between January 1990 and March 2020 (n = 40,548). Outcomes Diabetes‐related complications, quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs to the English National Health Service at 5 years and lifetime. Interventions: The WISDOM intervention included risk stratification, self‐management education programme to professionals and people with type 2 diabetes, and monitoring of key treatment targets. Results: WISDOM was associated with less atrial fibrillation [p = 0.001], albuminuria [p = 0.002] and blood pressure [p = 0.098]. Among all people in the intervention group, WISDOM led to 51 [95%CI: 25; 76] QALYs gained and saved £278,036 [95%CI: −631,900; 176,392] in the first 5 years after its implementation compared with care as usual. During those people' lifetime, WISDOM led to 253 [95%CI: 75; 404] QALYs gained and cost saving of £126,380 [95%CI: −1,466,008; 1,339,628]. The gains in QALYs were a result of reduced diabetes‐related complications through improved management of the associated risk factors. Conclusions: The WISDOM risk‐stratification and education intervention for type 2 diabetes appear to be cost‐effective compared to usual care by reducing diabetes complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Single-sided deafness presents communication challenges for adults. There are a range of care options, including CROS hearing aids, available but little is known about patient preferences for these interventions. The objective of this study was to understand the viewpoints of patients making decisions about audiological interventions they use. A constructivist worldview using thematic analysis to undertake a constant comparative analysis of 8 semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited from Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust audiology service in England. The results of the study describe ongoing iterative judgements being made by participants, informed by their access to information, effectiveness of audiological interventions, stigma, barriers to accessing care, and constant cost-benefit analyses being made. The key factors involved in decision-making by individuals with Single-sided deafness (SSD) are discussed. This study represents the first in-depth exploration of the individual's lifeworld related to which factors influence use of different audiological interventions by individuals with SSD. It highlights the complex and ongoing nature of how decisions are made by these individuals and identifies the need for greater information provision by clinicians, such as through use of a decision aid tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To explore what women aged below the national screening age in the UK know and think about cervical cancer and cervical screening. Background: The efficacy of cervical cancer screening is well established. However, cervical screening attendance in the United Kingdom has decreased, with especially low rates at the first screening opportunity at age 25. Research has not yet explored knowledge and beliefs underpinning young women's intention to screen before first screening invitation. Design: Qualitative exploratory study. Methods: Qualitative email interviews were undertaken with 16 participants, using questions derived from the Health Belief Model. Data were analysed using template analysis. The COREQ were followed. Results: Analysis generated three themes; (1) Learning about cervical cancer and cervical screening: sources of information and (missed) opportunities; (2) Young women know screening is important – but they don't always know why; (3) Screening intentions: a cost/benefit analysis of the available information. Conclusions: Young women had varied knowledge and beliefs about cervical cancer and screening which were underpinned by several sources of information available to them. Most women expressed an intention to attend screening when invited; however, some participants were unsure, with low screening‐based knowledge and low perceived susceptibility of cervical cancer identified as key barriers. Social media, familial interactions and interventions within education were highlighted as being suited to interventions aimed at increasing cervical cancer‐ and screening‐based knowledge in young women. Relevance to clinical practice: Findings suggest that women below screening age could be better informed about cervical cancer and screening. Tailored interventions addressing common concerns and misconceptions around screening may be acceptable to young women and could help to promote screening attendance at first invitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore the feasibility of a full economic evaluation of usual care plus peer-befriending versus usual care control, and potential cost-effectiveness of peer-befriending for people with aphasia. To report initial costs, ease of instruments' completion and overall data completeness. Design: Pilot economic evaluation within a feasibility randomised controlled trial Setting: Community, England Participants: People with post-stroke aphasia and low levels of psychological distress Intervention: All participants received usual care; intervention participants received six peer-befriending visits between randomisation and four months Main measures: Costs were collected on the stroke-adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI) for health, social care and personal out-of-pocket expenditure arising from care for participants and carers at 4- and 10-months post-randomisation. Health gains and costs were reported using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the EQ-5D-5L. Mean (CI) differences for costs and health gains were reported and uncertainty represented using non-parametric bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: 56 participants were randomised. Mean age was 70.1 (SD 13.4). Most (n = 37, 66%) had mild and many (n = 14; 25%) severe aphasia. There was ≥94% completion of CSRI questions. Peer-befriending was higher in intervention arm (p < 0.01) but there were no significant differences in total costs between trial arms. Peer-befriending visits costed on average £57.24 (including training and supervision costs). The probability of peer-befriending being cost-effective ranged 39% to 66%. Conclusions: Economic data can be collected from participants with post-stroke aphasia, indicating a full economic evaluation within a definitive trial is feasible. A larger study is needed to demonstrate further cost-effectiveness of peer-befriending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Communication of personalised disease risk can motivate smoking cessation. We assessed whether routine implementation of this intervention by general practitioners (GPs) in England is cost‐effective or whether we need further research to better establish its effectiveness. Design Cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) with value of information (VoI) analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective, using GP communication of personalised disease risk on smoking cessation versus usual care. Setting: GP practices in England. Study population: Healthy smokers aged 35–60 years attending the GP practice. Measurements Effectiveness of GP communication of personalised disease risk on smoking cessation was estimated through systematic review and meta‐analysis. A Bayesian CEA was then performed using a lifetime Markov model on smokers aged 35–60 years that measured lifetime costs and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) assigned to the four diseases contributing the most to smoking‐related morbidity, mortality and costs: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, myocardial infarction and stroke. Costs and QALYs for each disease state were obtained from the literature. VoI analysis identified sources of uncertainty in the CEA and assessed how much would be worth investing in further research to reduce this uncertainty. Findings The meta‐analysis odds ratio for the effectiveness estimate of GP communication of personalised disease risk was 1.48 (95% credibility interval, 0.91–2.26), an absolute increase in smoking cessation rates of 3.84%. The probability of cost‐effectiveness ranged 89–94% depending on sex and age. VoI analysis indicated that: (i) uncertainty in the effectiveness of the intervention was the driver of the overall uncertainty in the CEA; and (ii) a research investment to reduce this uncertainty is justified if lower than £27.6 million (£7 per smoker). Conclusions: Evidence to date shows that, in England, incorporating disease risk communication into general practitioners' practices to motivate smoking cessation is likely to be cost‐effective compared with usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on Chief Medical Officer for England recommending that young people remaining alcohol free until 18 years of age. Topics include highest levels of drinking among adolescents and the North East England being one of the highest levels of adolescent alcohol consumption in the UK; and exploring the relationship between alcohol use during adolescence and negative consequences in adulthood.

Background: Identifying and supporting young children who are at risk of developing anxiety disorders would benefit children, families, and wider society. Elevated anxiety symptoms, inhibited temperament, and high parental anxiety are established risk factors for later anxiety disorders, but it remains unclear who is most likely to benefit from prevention and early intervention programmes. Delivering an online intervention through schools to parents of young children who have one or more of these risks could maximise reach. The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of delivering an online parent-led intervention, compared with usual school provision only, for children (aged 4-7) identified as at risk for anxiety disorders on the basis of at least one risk factor. We also aim to identify the characteristics of children who do and do not benefit from intervention and mechanisms of change from the intervention.Methods: The design will be a parallel group, superiority cluster randomised controlled trial, with schools (clusters) randomised to intervention or usual school practice arms in a 1:1 ratio stratified according to level of deprivation within the school. The study will recruit and randomise at least 60 primary/infant schools in England, and on the basis of recruiting 60 schools, we will recruit 1080 trial participants (540 per arm). Parents of all children (aged 4-7) in sampled Reception, Year 1, and Year 2 classes will be invited to complete screening questionnaires. Children who screen positive on the basis of anxiety symptoms, and/or behavioural inhibition, and/or parent anxiety symptoms will be eligible for the trial. Parents/carers of children in schools allocated to the intervention arm will be offered a brief online intervention; schools in both arms will continue to provide any usual support for children and parents throughout the trial. Assessments will be completed at screening, baseline (before randomisation), 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be the absence/presence of an anxiety disorder diagnosis at 12 months.Discussion: The trial will determine if delivering an online intervention for parents of young children at risk of anxiety disorders identified through screening in schools is effective and cost-effective.Trial Registration: ISRCTN 82398107 . Prospectively registered on Jan. 14, 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The real-time control of water distribution networks for firefighting is an important but little-studied problem. Water utilities in England and Wales reduce hydraulic pressure to a minimum regulatory threshold in order to reduce leakage and avoid financial penalties. However, utilities are not legally bound to guarantee specific flow rates from fire hydrants, which poses a risk for firefighting. This study presents an adaptive nonlinear model predictive control scheme for water distribution networks integrating two modes of control: (1) normal control, when a network operates under normal conditions and the objective is to minimize energy costs and average zonal pressure, and (2) fire control, when fire flows need to be delivered from hydrants without exceeding maximum pressure and customer demand is maintained to the best extent possible. The proposed scheme is applied to an operational network. It demonstrates the combined benefits of reducing costs and leakage with increased fire flows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The novel coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) has placed unprecedented strain on healthcare providers, in particular, primary care services. General practitioners (GP) have to effectively manage patients remotely preserving social distancing. We aim to assess an app-based remote patient monitoring solution in reducing the workload of a clinician and reflect this as time-saved in an economic context. Primary care COVID patients in West London deemed medium risk were recruited into the virtual ward. Patients were monitored for 14 days by telephone or by both the Huma app and telephone. Information on number of phone calls, duration of phone calls and duration of time spent reviewing the app data was recorded. Results: The amount of time spent reviewing one patient in the telephone only arm of the study was 490 min, compared with 280 min spent reviewing one patient who was monitored via both the Huma app and telephone. Based on employed clinicians monitoring patients, this equates to a 0.04 reduction of full-time equivalent staffing I.e. for every 100 patients, it would require 4 less personnel to remotely monitor them. There was no difference in mortality or adverse events between the two groups. Conclusion: App-based remote patient monitoring potentially holds large economic benefit to COVID-19 patients. In wake of further waves or future pandemics, and even in routine care, app-based remote monitoring patients could free up vital resources in terms of clinical team's time, allowing a better reallocation of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies examined whether rapport-based interviewing with child sexual abuse (CSA) suspects provides greater interview yield that could result in overall cost-savings to the investigation. First, multi-level modelling was applied to 35 naturalistic CSA suspect interviews to establish whether rapport-based interviewing techniques increase "yield" – defined as information of investigative value. The Observing Rapport Based Interviewing Technique (ORBIT coding manual was used to code interviews; it includes an assessment of both interpersonal adaptive and maladaptive rapport-based interviewer engagement as well as motivational interviewing (MI) strategies. The impact of these two strands (interpersonal and MI) on extracting information of investigative value (including strengthening a case for court and safeguarding) were examined. Adaptive interpersonal strategies increased case strengthening and safeguarding yield, with motivational interviewing having the largest impact on safeguarding yield. Both strategies increase the likelihood of gaining additional types of economic yield. Maladaptive interviewer strategies reduced case strengthening and different types of economic yield. In study two, literature-based economic estimates were applied to establish the potential cost benefits from following national ORBIT rapport training. Further training in adaptive and motivational interviewing could contribute cost savings between £19 and £78 million (annual unit costs) increasing to £238–£972 million (lifetime costs) for online CSA across England and Wales; and £157–£639 million (annual unit costs) increasing to £2–£8 billion (lifetime costs) for all CSA. Failure to commit training resource to this, or an alternative strategy, could mean the cost burden attributable to maladaptive interviewing (between £1 and £6 million for online CSA and £12 and £48 million for all CSA) is not successfully averted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Local Area Coordination is an approach that emerged during the 1980s and 1990s to support individuals with learning disabilities in rural and metropolitan Western Australia. Offering direct family support, signposting and networking it aimed to improve access to services and promote social inclusion. It leveraged community resources and sought broader transformation through local collaborations and service redesign, as underpinned by a strengths-based philosophy. Scotland introduced a similar model of delivery from the early 2000s for learning disability support. Since 2010, a number of English and Welsh Local Authorities have introduced Local Area Coordination, and in doing so have expanded its support eligibility criteria to include those considered 'vulnerable' due to age, frailty, disability, mental health issues and housing precariousness. Findings: This article provides the first review of developments in England and Wales. Drawing upon published evaluation studies it reflects on Local Area Coordination implementation; reviews the existing evidence base and challenges surrounding data collection; and discusses the competing logic of Local Area Coordination in its aim of supporting individual and community improvement of health outcomes and well-being, and of furthering local government civic engagement and participation. Applications: This article points to the challenges and opportunities of implementing such a strength-, assets- and placed-based initiatives within Local Authority social service settings. Embedding Local Area Coordination within Local Authority settings requires skilled political and policy leadership. It balances emerging individual outcomes – health and well-being – with the civic mission (values, control and coproduction), and avoids one being subverted to the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]