Yes I agree. This is important but very hard to quantify. Of course the causal relationship goes both ways (poor physical health poor mental health) but it’s probable that mental health disorders have worse downstream effects than most physical health problems (economic productivity, stigma, impact on carers, physical health). We tried to capture these qualitatively at the beginning of the report but could have been clearer that they weren’t included in the cost-effectiveness calculations.
Agreed kind of. Room for more funding is a tricky one. In the long term, the treatment gap is so high that there’s a LOT of room to scale. But we’ve also included StrongMinds forecast expenditure based on current plans as it may be relevant for short term ability to productively use more funding. In any case, conclusion is the same. The organisation can absorb more funding in the short term, and in the long term there’s huge room to scale.
Should have been more clear. Fit with key themes was evaluated as: Evidence generating] AND [Preventative child health OR Task-shifting model]
We’ll be updating this before sharing it more widely. Would be great to chat more about pesticide bans if you’re available?
Thanks Austen. This is really helpful feedback.
Yes I agree. This is important but very hard to quantify. Of course the causal relationship goes both ways (poor physical health poor mental health) but it’s probable that mental health disorders have worse downstream effects than most physical health problems (economic productivity, stigma, impact on carers, physical health). We tried to capture these qualitatively at the beginning of the report but could have been clearer that they weren’t included in the cost-effectiveness calculations.
Thanks—this is really interesting. The $1000 figure came from here: http://​​dcp-3.org/​​sites/​​default/​​files/​​resources/​​15.%20Self%20Harm%20Pesticide%20Ban.pdf but that excludes morbidity. I’ll check out the Eddleston paper.
This is exciting
Agreed kind of. Room for more funding is a tricky one. In the long term, the treatment gap is so high that there’s a LOT of room to scale. But we’ve also included StrongMinds forecast expenditure based on current plans as it may be relevant for short term ability to productively use more funding. In any case, conclusion is the same. The organisation can absorb more funding in the short term, and in the long term there’s huge room to scale.
Should have been more clear. Fit with key themes was evaluated as: Evidence generating] AND [Preventative child health OR Task-shifting model]
We’ll be updating this before sharing it more widely. Would be great to chat more about pesticide bans if you’re available?