An Exploration of the Costs of Family and Group Conferencing Pathways in Adult Social Care and Mental Health: A Mixed Methods Approach

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 childrens 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 {pound}1,455 to {pound}2,043 (adjusted from 2022-2023 to 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. DiscussionHigher staff costs in the UK account for slightly higher intervention costs in an NHS mental health than in an adult social care context. 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). Ethics StatementUsing the UK Health Research Authority (HRA) screening tool, it was determined that the wider research project did not constitute research for which HRA approval was necessary, and therefore ethical approval (for the wider research project) was obtained from the University of Birmingham Humanities and Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee (ERN_22-0818). Research reported in this paper did not involve any human participants, or the processing or analysis of any human/personal data. Our research was informed by published sources (including grey literature) and expert opinion from practitioners partnering with us to deliver the research.