THE ESSENCE PROJECT

Employment support

Evidence

Autism Spectrum Disorder in Adults: Diagnosis and Management [CG142]
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London. 2016

This guideline covers diagnosing and managing suspected or confirmed autism spectrum disorder (autism, Asperger’s syndrome and atypical autism) in people aged 18 and over. It aims to improve access and engagement with interventions and services, and the experience of care, for people with autism.

In August 2016, 2 research recommendations were removed from this guideline.

Recommendations
This guideline includes recommendations on:

identification and assessment
interventions for autism
interventions for challenging behaviour
interventions for coexisting mental disorders
assessment and interventions for families, partners and carers
organising and delivering care
Who is it for?
Health and social care professionals (including those in the independent sector)
Commissioners and providers
Adults with autism and their families, partners and carers

Related NICE guideline:
APPENDIX 18:HEALTH ECONOMIC EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE TABLES OF PUBLISHED STUDIES Authors not listed

Investing in Recovery: Making the Business Case for Effective Interventions for People with Schizophrenia and Psychosis
Knapp M, Andrew A, McDaid D, et al Rethink Mental Illness, London. 2014

This study provides economic evidence to support the case for investing in effective, recovery-focused services for people with schizophrenia and psychosis. Drawing on a wide range of data, it sets out the evidence for the cost-effectiveness for a range of interventions and service. Those discussed are: Early Detection (ED) services; Early Intervention (EI) teams; Individual Placement and Support (IPS); Family therapy; Criminal justice liaison and diversion; Physical health promotion, including health behaviours; Supported housing; Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment (CRHT) teams; Crisis houses; Peer support; Self-management; Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT); Anti-stigma and discrimination campaigns; Personal Budgets (PBs); and Welfare advice. For each intervention the report provides information on the context, the nature of the intervention, the evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and the policy and practice implications. The report finds evidence to suggest that all of the interventions contribute to recovery outcomes, reduced costs and/or better value for money. Examples of the savings incurred through particular interventions are also included. The study was undertaken by a team from the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), the Centre for Mental Health, and the Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health (CEMPH) at King’s College London.

Supported employment: cost-effectiveness across six European sites
Knapp M, Patel A, Curran C, et al World Psychiatry, 12, 1, 60-68. 2013

A high proportion of people with severe mental health problems are unemployed but would like to work. Individual Placement and Support (IPS) offers a promising approach to establishing people in paid employment. In a randomized controlled trial across six European countries, we investigated the economic case for IPS for people with severe mental health problems compared to standard vocational rehabilitation. Individuals (n=312) were randomized to receive either IPS or standard vocational services and followed for 18 months. Service use and outcome data were collected. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with two primary outcomes: additional days worked in competitive settings and additional percentage of individuals who worked at least 1 day. Analyses distinguished country effects. A partial cost-benefit analysis was also conducted. IPS produced better outcomes than alternative vocational services at lower cost overall to the health and social care systems. This pattern also held in disaggregated analyses for five of the six European sites. The inclusion of imputed values for missing cost data supported these findings. IPS would be viewed as more cost-effective than standard vocational services. Further analysis demonstrated cost-benefit arguments for IPS. Compared to standard vocational rehabilitation services, IPS is, therefore, probably cost-saving and almost certainly more cost-effective as a way to help people with severe mental health problems into competitive employment.

The cost-effectiveness of supported employment for adults with autism in the United Kingdom
Mavranezouli I, Megnin-Viggars O, Cheema N, et al Autism, 18, 975-984. 2014

Adults with autism face high rates of unemployment. Supported employment enables individuals with autism to secure and maintain a paid job in a regular work environment. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of supported employment compared with standard care (day services) for adults with autism in the United Kingdom. Thus, a decision-analytic economic model was developed, which used outcome data from the only trial that has evaluated supported employment for adults with autism in the United Kingdom. The main analysis considered intervention costs, while cost-savings associated with changes in accommodation status and National Health Service and personal social service resource use were examined in secondary analyses. Two outcome measures were used: the number of weeks in employment and the quality-adjusted life year. Supported employment resulted in better outcomes compared with standard care, at an extra cost of £18 per additional week in employment or £5600 per quality-adjusted life year. In secondary analyses that incorporated potential cost-savings, supported employment dominated standard care (i.e. it produced better outcomes at a lower total cost). The analysis suggests that supported employment schemes for adults with autism in the United Kingdom are cost-effective compared with standard care. Further research needs to confirm these findings.

 Back to Organisational Framework


NIHR School for
Social Care Research