Mencia Ruiz Guitérrez Colosia

Over the past two decades, the growing number of theories, models and frameworks developed in implementation research has generated a significant problem o

The PECUNIA Project was funded by the H2020 programme in which 10 partners from six countries participated. The aim was to develop standardized, harmonized and validated methods and tools to calculate costs in different sectors (such as health and social care, education among others), with the purpose of facilitating comparability of economic evaluations of health technologies across European countries. In this paper we report the first validation of the developed reference unit cost templates in Spain. The evaluation of the PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates involved usability, transferability and feasibility assessment. Applicability tests were performed to estimate the cost of a selection of 15 resource items by means of the RUC templates in Spain and in four Spanish regions. External validation involved comparison with existing unit costs. It was possible to estimate the cost of five services (dental care and general practitioner in the Canary Islands, general practitioner in Spain [tariffs], health-related day care centre and education services provided in a special education school in the Basque Country), car vandalism as an example of potential health-related consequences, and informal care in Spain. The templates were feasible although data completeness depended on the type of data needed to estimate the costs. The templates are transferable across countries although comparability depends on the services available in each jurisdiction. The PECUNIA RUC Templates are free and feasible tools to estimate comparable reference unit costs across countries. Although more validation exercises are needed, they seem useful tools to perform robust multi-national economic evaluations and increase the transferability of cost-effectiveness studies of health technologies in Europe. However, they cannot compensate for the lack of data across jurisdictions.

Background Increasing healthcare costs require evidence-based resource use allocation for which assessing costs rigorously and comparably is crucial. Harmonized cross-country costing methods for evaluating interventions from a societal perspective are lacking. This study presents the development process and content of the service costing templates developed as part of the European project PECUNIA. Methods The six developmental steps towards technological readiness of the templates included (1) a common conceptual costing framework and review of methodological costing issues, (2) harmonization strategy formulation, (3) proof-of-concept with expert feedback, (4) piloting, (5) validation, and (6) demonstration in six European countries. Results The PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates for service costing are three new self-completion tools to be used with secondary or primary data for top-down micro-costing or top-down gross-costing approaches. Complementary data collection and unit cost aggregation/weighting templates are available. The applications leading to the final versions including (4) piloting through calculation of 15-unit costs, (5) validation within a Health Technology Assessment framework, and (6) RUC calculations mostly based on secondary data demonstrated the templates’ general feasibility, with feedback for improved usability incorporated and a supplementary user guide developed. Conclusion The validated PECUNIA RUC Templates for multi-sectoral and multi-country service costing allow for harmonized RUC development while incorporating flexibility and transparency in the choice of costing approaches, data sources and magnitude of remaining heterogeneity. The templates are expected to significantly improve the quality, comparability and availability of unit costs for economic evaluations, and promote the transferability of service cost information across Europe.

In the wake of the mental health crisis in children and adolescents, the coordination of education and mental health services has become a global priority. However, differing terminologies and classifications across sectors, hinder effective comparison. The classification in education focuses mainly on outputs like qualifications or throughputs like teaching programs. This proof-of-concept study tested the applicability of a standard classification of health services, the Description and Evaluation of Services and DirectoriEs (DESDE), to evaluate education services for mental health users in the context of Spain and The Netherlands. It was conducted alongside the PECUNIA project, that sought to develop methods for the assessment of mental health costs and outcomes in different sectors. The study followed an ontoterminology approach involving: 1) identification of services from a predefined list of 46 resource-use items, 2) disambiguation of identified services with the DESDE, and classifying them as accurate, ambiguous, vague or confuse; and 3) external validation by an expert panel. The analysis was conducted at the level of type of resource, target population and care provision. From the initial list, only ten of the resources could be categorized as services using DESDE, and not activities, interventions or professionals. Only four of them (8,65%) were accurate across all disambiguation categories. Experts were unaware of terminology problems in classification of service provision in the education sector. Classifications and glossaries can clarify service naming, description and costing allowing comparative effectiveness analysis and facilitating cross-sectoral planning. This should be grounded in common methodologies, tools, and units of analysis.

Cada mes de noviembre, miles de hombres de todo el mundo dejan crecer su bigote para concienciar sobre el cáncer de próstata, el cáncer de testículos y los problemas de salud mental masculinos, más arraigados en policías, paramédicos y bomberos.

Mental health care is a health policy priority in Europe and the reform and scaling-up of services a key target. For that, a more balanced hospital-ambulatory approach is needed as it has been recognized that community-based care has a positive impact in quality of life of patients. The generation and use of scientific knowledge for mental health policy and planning is essential on the path to a balanced system. Health care ecosystem research follows a bottom-up approach that intends to include the local evidence of mental health care systems to overcome the usual limited top-down perspective. For that purpose, system tools like mental health atlas are now providing standardized empirical data about service provision in an area, based on taxonomies like the ESMS/DESDE system. Atlases in turn, support advanced modelling tools like the Efficient Decision Support -Mental Health (EDeS-MH) to improve knowledge on the health ecosystem, resource allocation and management in regional planning.

Introduction: The global health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on mental health (MH). As a response to the pandemic, international agencies and governmental institutions provided an initial response to the population’s needs. As the pandemic evolved, the population circumstances changed, and some of these international agencies updated their strategies, recommendations, and guidelines for the populations. However, there is currently a lack of information on the attention given to response strategies by the different countries throughout the beginning of the pandemic. Objectives: 1) To evaluate the evolution of online MH strategies and recommendations of selected countries to cope with the MH impact of COVID-19 from the early stages of the pandemic (15 April 2020) to the vaccination period (9 June 2021) and 2) to review and analyse the current structures of these online MH strategies and recommendations. Methodology: An adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines to review online documents was developed with a questionnaire for MH strategies and recommendations assessment. The search was conducted on Google, including documents from April 2020 to June 2021. Basic statistics and Student’s t test were used to assess the evolution of the documents, while a two-step cluster analysis was performed to assess the organisation and characteristics of the most recent documents. Results: Statistically significant differences were found both in the number of symptoms and mental disorders and MH strategies and recommendations included in the initial documents and the updated versions generated after vaccines became available. The most recent versions are more complete in all cases. Regarding the forty-six total documents included in the review, the cluster analysis showed a broad distribution from wide-spectrum documents to documents focusing on a specific topic. Conclusions: Selected governments and related institutions have worked actively on updating their MH online documents, highlighting actions related to bereavement, telehealth and domestic violence. The study supports the use of the adaptation, including the tailor-made questionnaire, of the PRISMA protocol as a potential standard to conduct longitudinal assessments of online documents used to support MH strategies and recommendations.

Aims: Health services research (HSR) is affected by a widespread problem related to service terminology including non-commensurability (using different units of analysis for comparisons) and terminological unclarity due to ambiguity and vagueness of terms. The aim of this study was to identify the magnitude of the terminological bias in health and social services research and health economics by applying an international classification system. Methods: This study, that was part of the PECUNIA project, followed an ontoterminology approach (disambiguation of technical and scientific terms using a taxonomy and a glossary of terms). A listing of 56 types of health and social services relevant for mental health was compiled from a systematic review of the literature and feedback provided by 29 experts in six European countries. The disambiguation of terms was performed using an ontology-based classification of services (Description and Evaluation of Services and DirectoriEs – DESDE), and its glossary of terms. The analysis focused on the commensurability and the clarity of definitions according to the reference classification system. Interrater reliability was analysed using κ. Results: The disambiguation revealed that only 13 terms (23%) of the 56 services selected were accurate. Six terms (11%) were confusing as they did not correspond to services as defined in the reference classification system (non-commensurability bias), 27 (48%) did not include a clear definition of the target population for which the service was intended, and the definition of types of services was unclear in 59% of the terms: 15 were ambiguous and 11 vague. The κ analyses were significant for agreements in unit of analysis and assignment of DESDE codes and very high in definition of target population. Conclusions: Service terminology is a source of systematic bias in health service research, and certainly in mental healthcare. The magnitude of the problem is substantial. This finding has major implications for the international comparability of resource use in health economics, quality and equality research. The approach presented in this paper contributes to minimise differentiation between services by taking into account key features such as target population, care setting, main activities and type and number of professionals among others. This approach also contributes to support financial incentives for effective health promotion and disease prevention. A detailed analysis of services in terms of cost measurement for economic evaluations reveals the necessity and usefulness of defining services using a coding system and taxonomical criteria rather than by ‘text-based descriptions’.