Growth mindsets of anxiety: Do the benefits to individual flourishing come with societal costs?

Author(s):  
Crystal L. Hoyt ◽  
Jeni L. Burnette ◽  
Emma Nash ◽  
Whitney Becker ◽  
Joseph Billingsley
Keyword(s):  
Ecosphere ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Per‐Olav Moksnes ◽  
Maria Emilia Röhr ◽  
Marianne Holmer ◽  
Johan S. Eklöf ◽  
Louise Eriander ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117863292110224
Author(s):  
Lisanne I van Lier ◽  
Henriëtte G van der Roest ◽  
Vjenka Garms-Homolová ◽  
Graziano Onder ◽  
Pálmi V Jónsson ◽  
...  

This study aims to benchmark mean societal costs per client in different home care models and to describe characteristics of home care models with the lowest societal costs. In this prospective longitudinal study in 6 European countries, 6-month societal costs of resource utilization of 2060 older home care clients were estimated. Three care models were identified and compared based on level of patient-centered care (PCC), availability of specialized professionals (ASP) and level of monitoring of care performance (MCP). Differences in costs between care models were analyzed using linear regression while adjusting for case mix differences. Societal costs incurred in care model 2 (low ASP; high PCC & MCP) were significantly higher than in care model 1 (high ASP, PCC & MCP, mean difference €2230 (10%)) and in care model 3 (low ASP & PCC; high MCP, mean difference €2552 (12%)). Organizations within both models with the lowest societal costs, systematically monitor their care performance. However, organizations within one model arranged their care with a low focus on patient-centered care, and employed mainly generalist care professionals, while organizations in the other model arranged their care delivery with a strong focus on patient-centered care combined with a high availability of specialized care professionals.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth N. Mutubuki ◽  
Mariette A. Luitjens ◽  
Esther T. Maas ◽  
Frank J. P. M. Huygen ◽  
Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaughan J. Carr ◽  
Amanda L. Neil ◽  
Sean A. Halpin ◽  
Scott Holmes ◽  
Terry J. Lewin

Objective: To estimate the costs associated with the treatment and care of persons with psychosis in Australia based on data from the Low Prevalence Disorders Study (LPDS), and to identify areas where there is potential for more efficient use of existing health care resources. Method: The LPDS was a one-month census-based survey of people with psychotic disorders in contact with mental health services, which was conducted in four metropolitan regions in 1997–1998. Mental health and service utilization data from 980 interviews were used to estimate the economic costs associated with psychotic disorders. A prevalencebased, ‘bottom-up’ approach was adopted to calculate the government and societal costs associated with psychosis, including treatment and non-treatment related costs. Results: Annual societal costs for the average patient with psychosis are of the order of $46 200, comprising $27 500 in lost productivity, $13 800 in inpatient mental health care costs and $4900 in other mental health and community services costs. Psychosis costs the Australian government at least $1.45 billion per annum, while societal costs are at least $2.25 billion per annum (including $1.44 billion for schizophrenia). We also report relationships between societal costs and demographic factors, diagnosis, disability and participation in employment. Conclusions: Current expenditure on psychosis in Australia is probably inefficient. There may be substantial opportunity costs in not delivering effective treatments in sufficient volume to people with psychotic disorders, not intervening early, and not improving access to rehabilitation and supported accommodation.


2010 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 582-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markku T. Hillilä ◽  
Niilo J. Färkkilä ◽  
Martti A. Färkkilä

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document