Psychosis, characterised by chronic symptoms often emerging in youth, imposes a substantial burden on individuals and healthcare systems. While early detection and intervention can mitigate this burden, there is limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such approaches. To address this lack of evidence, this study protocol outlines the health economic implications of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based intervention, the Computer-Assisted Risk-Evaluation (CARE), designed to prevent psychosis. The intervention uses AI technologies to enhance the diagnosis and treatment quality for individuals at high risk of psychosis.

The health economic evaluation has been designed alongside a 12-month multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing CARE with treatment as usual from both payer and societal perspectives. An implementation cost analysis will complement the evaluation, and long-term consequences beyond the trial will be explored descriptively. Based on a literature review, an initial economic logic model will guide subsequent analyses by depicting CARE’s programme theory.

The cost-effectiveness assessment will include averted cases of manifest psychosis and quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Level instrument. Other effectiveness outcomes will also be incorporated into a cost–consequence analysis. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reflecting statistical uncertainty will be constructed, incorporating various payer and societal willingness-to-pay values. The implementation cost analysis will follow a mixed-methods approach to capture facility-specific costs.

A dark logic model, emphasising negative outcomes, will be developed to investigate long-term consequences. Further, the initial economic logic model will be refined using trial data and expert interviews. This comprehensive approach aims to provide decision-makers not only with evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CARE, but also with a broader understanding of the implications of the intervention.

The study has received ethical approval and plans to disseminate its findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.

NCT05813080.

Emergency ambulance services attend a wide array of medical and trauma patients. Infrequently, this includes imminent or out-of-hospital births (OOHBs). This scoping review explores emergency ambulance clinician involvement with OOHBs, and patient and clinician experiences with birthing in the out-of-hospital setting.

Scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and ‘participant, concept, context’ criteria.

CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Wiley Online were searched until 20 February 2024.

Articles discussing an unplanned OOHB, or a planned home birth with complications where an emergency ambulance was required, were included.

Two reviewers independently determined inclusion using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A data extraction tool summarised findings for descriptive synthesis.

63 articles were included. 36 articles involved retrospective research. 38 articles were published since 2015, with USA (n=17) and Australia (n=13) the highest contributors. Risk factors for OOHBs were varied, with maternal age or being multigravida/multiparous often cited. 99 complications were described, ranging from relatively minor ailments (ie, nausea and vomiting) to life-threatening situations such as maternal or neonatal cardiac arrest. Common management/interventions reported were assisting with birth, maternal intravenous cannulation and medication administration.

Birth parents, partners and clinicians all describe OOHBs as anxiety-provoking but joyous when a healthy neonate is born. The OOHB experience is enhanced for patients when clinicians communicate well, while those who appeared inexperienced increased patient anxiety.

OOHBs experience many challenges to optimal care, categorised as ‘emergency ambulance clinicians desiring additional education and training’, ‘communication and collaboration difficulties’, ‘environmental issues’, ‘technology and aids’ and ‘other’ limitations.

OOHBs are rare events requiring expert assistance to optimise patient outcomes. There remain significant challenges to unplanned OOHBs; ongoing training and skill competency is required to improve patient safety and clinician confidence. Further research investigating patient outcomes and experiences is recommended.