Cost-effectiveness analysis of a brief intervention delivered to problem drinkers presenting at an inner-city hospital emergency department

F. Michael Kunz, Michael French, Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) has gained widespread acceptance as an effective method for reducing problem drinking in at-risk populations. This study examines the cost and cost-effectiveness of an SBI pilot program delivered in an innercity hospital emergency department (ED) to a traditionally underserved population. Method: A total of 1,036 subjects were screened for problem drinking during their visit to an ED. Eligible participants (N= 294) were randomly assigned to either a brief intervention group or a control group. As the result of attrition, a final sample of 194 (90 brief intervention; 104 control) participants remained at follow-up. The intervention consisted of a brief counseling session and a health information packet. The control group received only the packet. Intervention cost data were collected and analyzed using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program. Selected outcomes at the 3-month follow-up included the raw Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score, average weekly number of drinks and engaging in heavy drinking in the past month (>6 drinks on one occasion for men, >4 for women). Outcome differences between the intervention and control groups were estimated with both bivariate and multivariate techniques. Results: The average economic cost of the brief intervention was $632 per subject, of which screening ($497) was the largest component. In all cases, intervention subjects had better 3-month outcomes than control subjects, but the differences were not always statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness ratios were relatively small for all three outcomes, suggesting this type of intervention has the potential to be cost-effective under full implementation. Conclusions: The preliminary results demonstrate the potential advantage of further research in this area with larger samples and a longer follow-up period.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)363-370
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Studies on Alcohol
Volume65
Issue number3
StatePublished - May 2004

Fingerprint

Urban Hospitals
Hospital Departments
Cost effectiveness
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Hospital Emergency Service
Costs and Cost Analysis
Drinking
costs
Screening
Costs
Control Groups
Alcohols
Drug therapy
Vulnerable Populations
Health Care Costs
Substance-Related Disorders
Counseling
Group
alcohol
Economics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a brief intervention delivered to problem drinkers presenting at an inner-city hospital emergency department. / Kunz, F. Michael; French, Michael; Bazargan-Hejazi, Shahrzad.

In: Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 65, No. 3, 05.2004, p. 363-370.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9a97a0d346b34ee2827a5debbc9f2bdc,
title = "Cost-effectiveness analysis of a brief intervention delivered to problem drinkers presenting at an inner-city hospital emergency department",
abstract = "Objective: Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) has gained widespread acceptance as an effective method for reducing problem drinking in at-risk populations. This study examines the cost and cost-effectiveness of an SBI pilot program delivered in an innercity hospital emergency department (ED) to a traditionally underserved population. Method: A total of 1,036 subjects were screened for problem drinking during their visit to an ED. Eligible participants (N= 294) were randomly assigned to either a brief intervention group or a control group. As the result of attrition, a final sample of 194 (90 brief intervention; 104 control) participants remained at follow-up. The intervention consisted of a brief counseling session and a health information packet. The control group received only the packet. Intervention cost data were collected and analyzed using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program. Selected outcomes at the 3-month follow-up included the raw Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score, average weekly number of drinks and engaging in heavy drinking in the past month (>6 drinks on one occasion for men, >4 for women). Outcome differences between the intervention and control groups were estimated with both bivariate and multivariate techniques. Results: The average economic cost of the brief intervention was $632 per subject, of which screening ($497) was the largest component. In all cases, intervention subjects had better 3-month outcomes than control subjects, but the differences were not always statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness ratios were relatively small for all three outcomes, suggesting this type of intervention has the potential to be cost-effective under full implementation. Conclusions: The preliminary results demonstrate the potential advantage of further research in this area with larger samples and a longer follow-up period.",
author = "Kunz, {F. Michael} and Michael French and Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi",
year = "2004",
month = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "65",
pages = "363--370",
journal = "Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs",
issn = "1937-1888",
publisher = "Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness analysis of a brief intervention delivered to problem drinkers presenting at an inner-city hospital emergency department

AU - Kunz, F. Michael

AU - French, Michael

AU - Bazargan-Hejazi, Shahrzad

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - Objective: Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) has gained widespread acceptance as an effective method for reducing problem drinking in at-risk populations. This study examines the cost and cost-effectiveness of an SBI pilot program delivered in an innercity hospital emergency department (ED) to a traditionally underserved population. Method: A total of 1,036 subjects were screened for problem drinking during their visit to an ED. Eligible participants (N= 294) were randomly assigned to either a brief intervention group or a control group. As the result of attrition, a final sample of 194 (90 brief intervention; 104 control) participants remained at follow-up. The intervention consisted of a brief counseling session and a health information packet. The control group received only the packet. Intervention cost data were collected and analyzed using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program. Selected outcomes at the 3-month follow-up included the raw Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score, average weekly number of drinks and engaging in heavy drinking in the past month (>6 drinks on one occasion for men, >4 for women). Outcome differences between the intervention and control groups were estimated with both bivariate and multivariate techniques. Results: The average economic cost of the brief intervention was $632 per subject, of which screening ($497) was the largest component. In all cases, intervention subjects had better 3-month outcomes than control subjects, but the differences were not always statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness ratios were relatively small for all three outcomes, suggesting this type of intervention has the potential to be cost-effective under full implementation. Conclusions: The preliminary results demonstrate the potential advantage of further research in this area with larger samples and a longer follow-up period.

AB - Objective: Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) has gained widespread acceptance as an effective method for reducing problem drinking in at-risk populations. This study examines the cost and cost-effectiveness of an SBI pilot program delivered in an innercity hospital emergency department (ED) to a traditionally underserved population. Method: A total of 1,036 subjects were screened for problem drinking during their visit to an ED. Eligible participants (N= 294) were randomly assigned to either a brief intervention group or a control group. As the result of attrition, a final sample of 194 (90 brief intervention; 104 control) participants remained at follow-up. The intervention consisted of a brief counseling session and a health information packet. The control group received only the packet. Intervention cost data were collected and analyzed using the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program. Selected outcomes at the 3-month follow-up included the raw Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score, average weekly number of drinks and engaging in heavy drinking in the past month (>6 drinks on one occasion for men, >4 for women). Outcome differences between the intervention and control groups were estimated with both bivariate and multivariate techniques. Results: The average economic cost of the brief intervention was $632 per subject, of which screening ($497) was the largest component. In all cases, intervention subjects had better 3-month outcomes than control subjects, but the differences were not always statistically significant. Cost-effectiveness ratios were relatively small for all three outcomes, suggesting this type of intervention has the potential to be cost-effective under full implementation. Conclusions: The preliminary results demonstrate the potential advantage of further research in this area with larger samples and a longer follow-up period.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2542570964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2542570964&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15222593

AN - SCOPUS:2542570964

VL - 65

SP - 363

EP - 370

JO - Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

JF - Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

SN - 1937-1888

IS - 3

ER -