Income-related inequalities in common mental disorders among ethnic minorities in England.

PURPOSE: The relative prevalence of common mental health problems among different ethnic groups in Britain is one of the least researched topics in health variations research. We calculate and compare income-related inequalities in common mental disorders among ethnic groups in Britain. METHOD: Data from a nationally representative survey of ethnic minorities (the EMPIRIC survey) were used to calculate concentration index values to indicate the extent of income-related inequalities within and across ethnic groups. RESULTS: Looking at income-related inequalities in common mental disorders within each of the ethnic groups, it was found that the burden of these disorders were greater for the lower income groups among the Irish, White and African Caribbean communities. Within-group inequality was less clearly defined for each of the three Asian communities: Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani. However, when the data were pooled and individuals were assigned income ranks in the pooled set (not within their own ethnic group), the relative position of those in lower income groups among the different groups was striking. The poor among the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and the African Caribbean groups clearly suffered both from low income and a greater burden of mental health morbidity than the other three groups. The effect of lower income is thus worse for the mental health of populations if they are African Caribbean, Pakistani or Bangladeshi than if they are White, Irish or Indian. CONCLUSION: Inequality in mental health morbidity between and within ethnic groups is at least partly linked to income, and thus to employment and education. Tackling disadvantage and discrimination in these areas could help to tackle the challenge of mental ill-health.

Housing services for people with mental disorders in England: patient characteristics, care provision and costs.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Since de-institutionalisation, housing services have taken a central role in the care of patients with severe mental illness. Yet, little is known about the characteristics of patients in different housing services, what care they receive, and what costs are generated. This study aimed to assess patient characteristics, care provision and costs in different types of housing services in England. METHODS: In 12 representative local areas in England, 250 housing services were randomly selected. Information on services, characteristics of randomly selected patients and care received were obtained from managers. RESULTS: Data from 153 services (61% response rate) and 414 patients were analysed. Most patients receive support with activities of daily living and are involved in some sort of occupational activities. 52% have a care co-ordinator in a community mental health team. Care provision and costs differed significantly between care homes, supported housing services and floating support services. CONCLUSIONS: Quality standards may have to be defined and applied to ensure that all patients in housing services receive appropriate care. More input of mental health services may be required for the rehabilitation and recovery of patients.

Cost of schizophrenia in England.

BACKGROUND: Despite the wide-ranging financial and social burdens associated with schizophrenia, there have been few cost-of-illness studies of this illness in the UK. AIM OF THE STUDY: To provide up-to-date, prevalence based estimate of all costs associated with schizophrenia for England. METHODS: A bottom-up approach was adopted. Separate cost estimates were made for people living in private households, institutions, prisons and for those who are homeless. The costs included related to: health and social care, informal care, private expenditures, lost productivity, premature mortality, criminal justice services and other public expenditures such as those by the social security system. Data came from many sources, including the UK-SCAP (Schizophrenia Care and Assessment Program) survey, Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys, Department of Health and government publications. RESULTS: The estimated total societal cost of schizophrenia was 6.7 billion pounds in 2004/05. The direct cost of treatment and care that falls on the public purse was about 2 billion pounds; the burden of indirect costs to the society was huge, amounting to nearly 4.7 billion pounds. Cost of informal care and private expenditures borne by families was 615 million pounds. The cost of lost productivity due to unemployment, absence from work and premature mortality of patients was 3.4 billion pounds. The cost of lost productivity of carers was 32 million pounds. Estimated cost to the criminal justice system was about 1 million pounds. It is estimated that about 570 million pounds will be paid out in benefit payments and the cost of administration associated with this is about 14 million pounds. DISCUSSION: It is difficult to compare estimates from previous cost-of-illness studies due to differences in the methods, scope of analyses and the range of costs covered. Costs estimated in this study are detailed, cover a comprehensive list of relevant items and allow for different levels of disaggregation. The main limitation of the study is that data came from a variety of secondary sources and some official data publicly available was not the latest. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION: Schizophrenia continues to be a high cost illness because of the range of health needs that people have. Despite the shifting balance of care away from hospital-based care, the health care costs of treating and supporting people with schizophrenia remain high. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Decision-makers need to recognise the breadth of economic impacts, well beyond the health system as conventionally defined. For example, as nearly 80% of schizophrenia patients remain unemployed, the cost of lost productivity is especially large. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Better measurement of criminal justice services costs, private expenditures borne by families and valuation of lost quality of life could improve the estimates further.

Income-related inequality in mental health in Britain: the concentration index approach.

BACKGROUND: Reduction of health inequalities is a major policy goal in the UK. While there is general recognition of the disadvantaged position of people with mental health problems, the extent of inequality, particularly the association with socio-economic characteristics, has not been widely studied. We aimed to measure income-related inequality in the distribution of psychiatric disorders and to compare with inequality in other health domains. METHOD: The concentration index (CI) approach was used to examine income-related inequality in mental health using data from the Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2000 for Britain. RESULTS: There is marked inequality unfavourable to lower income groups with respect to mental health disorders. The extent of inequality increases with the severity of problems, with the greatest inequality observed for psychosis. Income-related inequality for psychiatric disorders is higher than for general health in the UK. Standardized CIs suggest that these inequalities are not due to the demographic composition of the income quintiles. CONCLUSIONS: Income-related inequalities exist in mental health in Britain. As much of the observed inequality is probably due to factors associated with income and not due to the demographic composition of the income quintiles, it may be that these inequalities are potentially 'avoidable'.

"The trouble with QALYs...".

This paper summarises the use of QALYs in evaluating changes in mental health states, highlighting the benefits and challenges of their use in this field. The general principles underlying the QALY measure and the most common methods of measuring QALYs are discussed briefly. Evidence of the usefulness and problems of using this generic measure of health-related quality of life are provided from a sample of recent studies relating to depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dementia. In each case, attempts were made to use QALYs to measure changes in health states. While in principle, the QALY is enormously attractive, its suitability for measuring changes in many mental health conditions remains open to doubt as existing tools for generating QALY scores such as the EQ-5D have tended not to perform sufficiently well in reflecting changes in many mental health states. New developmental work is needed to construct better QALY-measuring tools for use in the mental health field. Both the conceptualisation and measurement of QALYs need to be built on a valid, comprehensive model of quality of life specific to a mental health disorder, to ensure that the resultant tool is sensitive enough to pick up changes that would be expected and seen as relevant in the course of the illness.

Equity in mental health.

AIM: The aim of this paper is to discuss the study of equity in mental health contexts. METHODS: We review major principles and theories of distributive justice, covering various disciplines such as ethics, philosophy, economics, medicine and sociology. Recent literature on empirical analysis of inequalities in the mental health field is also reviewed. RESULTS: The review of literature reveals a general lack of debate on equity principles in relation to mental health. Robust empirical evidence on inequalities in the field is also scarce. CONCLUSIONS: There is need for better exposition of the relevance of different equity principles for mental health policy and practice. There is also a need for developing standardised methods for the empirical analysis of equity, to examine the distribution of psychiatric morbidity and use of services by income, socio-economic group, ethnicity, gender and place of residence, and, of course, to examine how equity can be promoted.

The global costs of schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is a chronic disease associated with a significant and long-lasting health, social, and financial burden, not only for patients but also for families, other caregivers, and the wider society. Many national and local studies have sought to estimate the societal burden of the illness--or some components of it--in monetary terms. Findings vary. We systematically reviewed the literature to locate all existing international estimates to date. Sixty-two relevant studies were found and summarized. Within- and between-country differences were analyzed descriptively. Despite the wide diversity of data sets and methods applied, all cost-of-illness estimates highlight the heavy societal burden of schizophrenia. Such information helps us to understand the health, health care, economic, and policy importance of schizophrenia, and to better interpret and explain the large within- and across-country differences that exist.