ABSTRACT
Personal budgets (PBs) may improve the lives of people with mental health conditions and people with intellectual disability (ID). However, a clear definition of PB, benefits, and challenges is still faded. This work aims to systematically review evidence on PB use in mental health and ID contexts, from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective, and summarize the recent research on interventions, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of PBs in beneficiaries with mental health conditions and/or ID. The present systematic review is an update of the existing literature analyzed since 2013. We performed a systematic search strategy of articles using the bibliographic databases PubMed and PsycINFO. Six blinded authors screened the works for inclusion/exclusion criteria, and two blinded authors extracted the data. We performed a formal narrative synthesis of the findings from the selected works. A total of 9,800 publications were screened, and 29 were included. Improvement in responsibility and awareness, quality of life, independent living, paid work, clinical, psychological, and social domains, and everyday aspects of the users' and their carers' life have been observed in people with mental health conditions and/or ID. However, the PBs need to be less stressful and burdensome in their management for users, carers, and professionals. In addition, more quantitative research is needed to inform PBs' policymakers. Systematic Review Registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42020172607].
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Individual Health Budget (IHB) is an intervention for recovery in mental health services, providing personalized care for subjects with severe disorders and complex needs. Little is known on its effectiveness and on the criteria for its delivery. METHODS: A total of 67 IHB beneficiaries and 61 comparators were recruited among service users of the Mental Health Department of the Trieste Healthcare Agency, Italy. Data included sociodemographic and clinical variables, type of IHB, and Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS) scores. RESULTS: A comparison between groups showed significant differences in several socioeconomic and clinical characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression showed that IHB was positively associated to the 20-49 age group, single status, unemployment, low family support, cohabitation with relatives or friends, diagnosis of personality disorder, and a higher number of hospitalizations. The IHB group was at a higher risk of severe problems related to aggressive or agitated behaviors (OR = 1.4), hallucinations and delusions (OR = 1.5), and impairment in everyday life activities (OR = 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: IHB was used in patients with severe clinical and social problems. More resources, however, may be aimed at the working and social axes. More research is needed to better assess clinical and social outcomes of IHB and to adjust their intensity in a longitudinal perspective in order to enhance cost-effectiveness.
