A cost-effectiveness analysis of school-based suicide prevention programmes
Suicide is one of the leading causes of death among young people globally. In light of emerging evidence supporting the effectiveness of school-based suicide prevention programmes, an analysis of cost-effectiveness is required. We aimed to conduct a full cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the large pan-European school-based RCT, Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe (SEYLE). The health outcomes of interest were suicide attempt and severe suicidal ideation with suicide plans. Adopting a payer’s perspective, three suicide prevention interventions were modelled with a Control over a 12-month time period. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) indicate that the Youth Aware of Mental Health (YAM) programme has the lowest incremental cost per 1% point reduction in incident for both outcomes and per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus the Control. The ICERs reported for YAM were €34.83 and €45.42 per 1% point reduction in incident suicide attempt and incident severe suicidal ideation, respectively, and a cost per QALY gained of €47,017 for suicide attempt and €48,216 for severe suicidal ideation. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to examine uncertainty in the QALY analysis, where cost-effectiveness probabilities were calculated using net monetary benefit analysis incorporating a two-stage bootstrapping technique. For suicide attempt, the probability that YAM was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €47,000 was 39%. For severe suicidal ideation, the probability that YAM was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €48,000 was 43%. This CEA supports YAM as the most cost-effective of the SEYLE interventions in preventing both a suicide attempt and severe suicidal ideation.
Trial registration number DRKS00000214.
KeywordsSuicide attempt Suicidal ideation Prevention Intervention Adolescents School Cost-effectiveness
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
The SEYLE study was approved ethically by the European Commission as a precondition of funding approval for the project. Ethical permission for the project, including permission to follow-up individual pupils was obtained in each participating country by the Research Ethics Committees. All requirements of obtaining Informed Consent from pupils and parents were followed carefully.
- 1.World Health Organization (2014) Preventing suicide: a global imperative. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 2.World Health Organization (2013) Mental health action plan 2013–2020. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 3.World Health Organization (2015) Suicide prevention (Supre). http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicideprevent/en. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
- 9.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2010) Data & statistics (WISQARS™): cost of injury reports. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/suicide/consequences.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
- 12.Wasserman C, Hoven CW, Wasserman D, Carli V, Sarchiapone M, Al-Halabí S, Apter A, Balazs J, Bobes J, Cosman D (2012) Suicide prevention for youth-a mental health awareness program: lessons learned from the Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe (SEYLE) intervention study. BMC Public Health 12(1):776CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.Health Service Executive (HSE) Ireland (2010) January 2010 consolidated payscales. HSE. https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/benefitsservices/pay/payscalesjan2010.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
- 15.KPMG (2010) KPMG’s individual income tax and social security rate survey 2010. KPMG International. https://www.taxation.co.uk/files/IndividualIncomeTax2010.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
- 16.Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) (2014) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. HIQA, Dublin. https://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/Economic-Evaluation-Guidelines-2014.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
- 18.SDQ (2012) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. http://www.sdqinfo.com/a0.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
- 20.CHU 9D (2014) The Child Health Utility 9D. https://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/mvh/paediatric. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
- 21.Boyer NRS, Miller S, Connolly P, McIntosh E (2016) Paving the way for the use of the SDQ in economic evaluations of school-based population health interventions: an empirical analysis of the external validity of SDQ mapping algorithms to the CHU9D in an educational setting. Qual Life Res 25(4):913–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1218-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 16(2):231–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ng E, Grieve R, Carpenter J (2013) Two-stage non-parametric bootstrap sampling with shrinkage correction for clustered data. Stata J 13(1):141–164Google Scholar
- 26.Briggs A, Schulpher M, Claxton K (2006) Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 27.Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S (2011) Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar