Mental health disorders and their treatments produce significant costs and benefits in both healthcare and non-healthcare sectors. The latter are often referred to as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Little is known about healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector and how to include these in health economics research.

The triple aim of this study is (i) to identify healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector, (ii) to validate the list of healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector on a European level by sector-specific experts, and (iii) to classify the identified ICBs.

A scientific literature search in PubMed and an additional grey literature search, carried out in six European countries, were used to retrieve ICBs. In order to validate the international applicability of the ICBs, a survey was conducted with an international group of experts from the criminal justice sector. The list of criminal justice ICBs was categorized according to the PECUNIA conceptual framework.

The full-text analysis of forty-five peer-reviewed journal articles and eleven grey literature sources resulted in a draft list of items. Input from the expert survey resulted in a final list of fourteen unique criminal justice ICBs, categorized according to the care atom.

This study laid further foundations for the inclusion of important societal costs of mental health-related interventions within the criminal justice sector. More research is needed to facilitate the further and increased inclusion of ICBs in health economics research.

Mental health problems can lead to costs and benefits in other sectors (e.g. in the education sector) in addition to the healthcare sector. These related costs and benefits are known as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Although some ICBs within the education sector have been identified previously, little is known about their extensiveness and transferability, which is crucial for their inclusion in health economics research.

The aim of this study was to identify ICBs in the education sector, to validate the list of ICBs in a broader European context, and to categorize the ICBs using mental health as a case study.

Previously identified ICBs in the education sector were used as a basis for this study. Additional ICBs were extracted from peer-reviewed literature in PubMed and grey literature from six European countries. A comprehensive list of unique items was developed based on the identified ICBs. The list was validated by surveying an international group of educational experts. The survey results were used to finalize the list, which was categorized according to the care atom.

Additional ICBs in the education sector were retrieved from ninety-six sources. Fourteen experts from six European countries assessed the list for completeness, clarity, and relevance. The final list contained twenty-four ICBs categorized into input, throughput, and output.

By providing a comprehensive list of ICBs in the education sector, this study laid further foundations for the inclusion of important societal costs in health economics research in the broader European context.

Evidence-informed planning and interpretation of research results both require standardised description of local care delivery context. Such context analysis descriptions should be comparable across regions and countries to allow benchmarking and organizational learning, and for research findings to be interpreted in context. The European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS) is a classification of adult mental health services that was later adapted for the assessment of health and social systems research (Description and Evaluation of Services and DirectoriEs - DESDE). The aim of the study was to review the diffusion and use of the ESMS/DESDE system in health and social care and its impact in health policy and decision-making.

We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (1997–2018).

Out of 155 papers mentioning ESMS/DESDE, 71 have used it for service research and planning. The classification has been translated into eight languages and has been used by seven international research networks. Since 2000, it has originated 11 instruments for health system research with extensive analysis of their metric properties. The ESMS/DESDE coding system has been used in 585 catchment areas in 34 countries for description of services delivery at local, regional and national levels.

The ESMS/DESDE system provides a common terminology, a classification of care services, and a set of tools allowing a variety of aims to be addressed in healthcare and health systems research. It facilitates comparisons across and within countries for evidence-informed planning.

Within the ICD and DSM review processes there is growing debate on the future classification and status of adjustment disorders, even though evidence on this clinical entity is scant, particularly outside specialised care.

To estimate the prevalence of adjustment disorders in primary care; to explore whether there are differences between primary care patients with adjustment disorders and those with other mental disorders; and to describe the recognition and treatment of adjustment disorders by general practitioners (GPs).

Participants were drawn from a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 3815 patients from 77 primary healthcare centres in Catalonia. The prevalence of current adjustment disorders and subtypes were assessed face to face using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I). Multilevel logistic regressions were conducted to assess differences between adjustment disorders and other mental disorders. Recognition and treatment of adjustment disorders by GPs were assessed through a review of patients' computerised clinical histories.

The prevalence of adjustment disorders was 2.94%. Patients with adjustment disorders had higher mental quality-of-life scores than patients with major depressive disorder but lower than patients without mental disorder. Self-perceived stress was also higher in adjustment disorders compared with those with anxiety disorders and those without mental disorder. Recognition of adjustment disorders by GPs was low: only 2 of the 110 cases identified using the SCID-I were detected by the GP. Among those with adjustment disorders, 37% had at least one psychotropic prescription.

Adjustment disorder shows a distinct profile as an intermediate category between no mental disorder and affective disorders (depression and anxiety disorders).

The World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that the three leading causes of burden of disease in 2030 are projected to include HIV/AIDS, unipolar depression and ischaemic heart disease.

To estimate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses associated with mental disorders and chronic physical conditions in primary healthcare using data from the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders in primary care (DASMAP) study, an epidemiological survey carried out with primary care patients in Catalonia (Spain).

A cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 3815 primary care patients. A preference-based measure of health was derived from the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF–12): the Short Form–6D (SF–6D) multi-attribute health-status classification. Each profile generated by this questionnaire has a utility (or weight) assigned. We used non-parametric quantile regressions to model the association between both mental disorders and chronic physical condition and SF–6D scores.

Conditions associated with SF–6D were: mood disorders, β =−0.20 (95% CI −0.18 to −0.21); pain, β = −0.08 (95%CI −0.06 to −0.09) and anxiety, β =−0.04 (95% CI −0.03 to −0.06). The top three causes of QALY losses annually per 100 000 participants were pain (5064), mood disorders (2634) and anxiety (805).

Estimation of QALY losses showed that mood disorders ranked second behind pain-related chronic medical conditions.

The analysis of the costs of schizophrenia and its treatment under different mental health care structures will facilitate the improved allocation of the limited resources available for the treatment of schizophrenia. The research we present compares health service use and total health care costs of three cohorts of subjects with schizophrenia which are representative of three areas of Spain (Burlada in Navarra, Cantabria and the Eixample of Barcelona).

We selected first-time contacts with any psychiatric service who received a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Subjects were evaluated in the third year after onset.

The mean number of out-patient visits per patient per year was 10.7 and the mean in-patient days were 9.5. The mean direct cost per patient in the third year of treatment was US$2243. Costs were higher for single subjects and for people who had a relapse. Costs of subjects with better functioning were lower than costs of subjects with a worse state.

Direct costs of care in Spain were lower than the reported figures from other western European countries. Costs were greater in the two centres with greater community mental health service development. Some of the findings may be explained by service availability.