ArticlePloS one2025
An exploration of the costs of family and group conferencing pathways in adult social care and mental health: A scenario-based cost analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What is Family and Group Conferencing for adults? Part 1: Characterising the model and methods of enquiry.NIHR open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextFamily and Group Conferencing (FGC) is a strengths-based approach to social work, originating from New Zealand and now used internationally. Previous research on FGC has focused largely on the context of children's services but, FGC also aligns with the principle of the Care Act in England to prevent, reduce or delay the need for long-term (and potentially costly) adult care services. Limited previous research has tended to explore potential cost savings associated with FGC, without accounting for the cost of the intervention itself, risking biased results.
objectiveThis paper aims to identify resource use and associated monetary costs associated with FGC services in English adult social care and mental health settings.
methodsFramework development was informed by previously published work establishing programme theory for FGC, extended by expert opinion and published sources of monetary costs. The framework used scenario-based analysis and a bottom-up costing approach, with sensitivity analysis.
resultsEstimated costs of conducting a standard full FGC (excluding referral) range from £1,455 to £2,043 (adjusted from 2022-2023-2025 prices) from a local authority and National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Costs can vary depending on the involvement of an advocate or interpreter, network size and the complexity of issues being addressed. We report overall costs with and without resource use specifically related to referral. DISCUSSION: Higher staff costs account for slightly higher intervention costs in an NHS mental health setting, compared to adult social care settings.
conclusionReallocating scarce public resources with the intention of preventing, reducing or delaying use of costly future care must be evidence-based as pressures build to meet acute needs. Accurate per-case costing of FGC is a necessary preliminary step towards exploring the cost-effectiveness of FGC. A full economic evaluation will account for costs, outcomes, and alternative options (uses of limited resources).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.