Phenomenon: Rising healthcare expenditures threaten the accessibility and affordability of healthcare systems. Research has demonstrated that teaching (junior) physicians to deliver high-value, cost-conscious care can be effective when learning is situated in a supportive environment. This study aims to offer insight into how residents learn to provide high-value, cost-conscious care in the workplace and how the postgraduate training environment influences this learning. Approach: Six homogeneous focus groups were held between August 2015 and July 2016 with 36 residents from six residency programs (dermatology, n ¼ 5; elderly care, n ¼ 8; family medicine, n ¼ 5; internal medicine, n ¼ 6; orthopedic surgery, n ¼ 6; surgery, n ¼ 6). An iterative grounded theory approach was used to analyze the qualitative data. Findings: Influential factors in learning of high-value, cost-conscious care delivery operated on three levels: individual resident, training program, and the workplace. On the individual level, we discerned three types of beliefs regarding HV3C. At the training program level, perceived determinants of learning included resident-supervisor interactions, involvement in decision-making over time, and exposure to variation in care delivery. At the workplace level, learning depended on the availability of professional healthcare expertise and the presence of institutional policy. Insights: Residents struggle to seize high-value, cost-conscious care learning opportunities in the workplace setting. Both residency training programs and workplaces can contribute to creating these learning opportunities. An important starting point is being aware of the different personal beliefs of residents and the approaches to high-value, cost-conscious care on the level of the training program and workplace.

Aims To estimate the societal costs and quality of life of people with type 2 diabetes and to compare these results with those of people with normal glucose tolerance or prediabetes. Methods Data from 2915 individuals from the population‐based Maastricht Study were included. Costs were assessed through a resource‐use questionnaire completed by the participants; cost prices were based on Dutch costing guidelines. Quality of life was expressed in utilities using the Dutch EuroQol 5D‐3L questionnaire and the SF‐36 health survey. Based on normal fasting glucose and 2‐h plasma glucose values, participants were classified into three groups: normal glucose tolerance (n = 1701); prediabetes (n = 446); or type 2 diabetes (n = 768). Results Participants with type 2 diabetes had on average 2.2 times higher societal costs than those with normal glucose tolerance (€3,006 and €1,377 per 6 months, respectively) and had lower utilities (0.77 and 0.81, respectively). No significant differences were found between participants with normal glucose tolerance and those with prediabetes. Subgroup analyses showed that higher age, being female and having two or more diabetes‐related complications resulted in higher costs (P < 0.05) and lower utilities. Conclusions This study showed that people with type 2 diabetes have substantially higher societal costs and lower quality of life than people with normal glucose tolerance. The results provide important input for future model‐based economic evaluations and for policy decision‐making.

The rapid spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic has affected societies worldwide, leading to excess mortality, long-lasting health consequences, strained healthcare systems, and additional strains and spillover effects on other sectors outside health (i.e., intersectoral costs and benefits). In this perspective piece, we demonstrate the broader societal impacts of COVID-19 on other sectors outside the health sector and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses. These broader impacts include, for instance, the effects on the labor market and productivity, education, criminal justice, housing, consumption, and environment. The current pandemic highlights the importance of adopting a societal perspective to consider these broader impacts of public health issues and interventions and only omit these where it can be clearly justified as appropriate to do so. Furthermore, we explain how the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated existing deep-rooted structural inequalities that contribute to the wider societal impacts of the pandemic.

Background Mental health problems can lead to costs and benefits in other sectors (e.g. in the education sector) in addition to the healthcare sector. These related costs and benefits are known as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Although some ICBs within the education sector have been identified previously, little is known about their extensiveness and transferability, which is crucial for their inclusion in health economics research. Objectives The aim of this study was to identify ICBs in the education sector, to validate the list of ICBs in a broader European context, and to categorize the ICBs using mental health as a case study. Methods Previously identified ICBs in the education sector were used as a basis for this study. Additional ICBs were extracted from peer-reviewed literature in PubMed and grey literature from six European countries. A comprehensive list of unique items was developed based on the identified ICBs. The list was validated by surveying an international group of educational experts. The survey results were used to finalize the list, which was categorized according to the care atom. Results Additional ICBs in the education sector were retrieved from ninety-six sources. Fourteen experts from six European countries assessed the list for completeness, clarity, and relevance. The final list contained twenty-four ICBs categorized into input, throughput, and output. Conclusion By providing a comprehensive list of ICBs in the education sector, this study laid further foundations for the inclusion of important societal costs in health economics research in the broader European context.

Background Mental health disorders and their treatments produce significant costs and benefits in both healthcare and non-healthcare sectors. The latter are often referred to as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Little is known about healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector and how to include these in health economics research. Objectives The triple aim of this study is (i) to identify healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector, (ii) to validate the list of healthcare-related ICBs in the criminal justice sector on a European level by sector-specific experts, and (iii) to classify the identified ICBs. Methods A scientific literature search in PubMed and an additional grey literature search, carried out in six European countries, were used to retrieve ICBs. In order to validate the international applicability of the ICBs, a survey was conducted with an international group of experts from the criminal justice sector. The list of criminal justice ICBs was categorized according to the PECUNIA conceptual framework. Results The full-text analysis of forty-five peer-reviewed journal articles and eleven grey literature sources resulted in a draft list of items. Input from the expert survey resulted in a final list of fourteen unique criminal justice ICBs, categorized according to the care atom. Conclusion This study laid further foundations for the inclusion of important societal costs of mental health-related interventions within the criminal justice sector. More research is needed to facilitate the further and increased inclusion of ICBs in health economics research.