The cost-effectiveness of brief intervention versus brief treatment of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in the United States

Health Research

Text available via DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13658
Final published version

Keywords

brief intervention, brief treatment, cost‐effectiveness, economic evaluation, SBIRT, substance abuse

View graph of relations

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The cost-effectiveness of brief intervention versus brief treatment of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in the United States. / Barbosa, Carolina; Cowell, Alexander J.; Dowd, Bill et al.
In: Addiction (Abingdon, England), Vol. 112, No. Suppl. 2, 01.02.2017, p. 73-81.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Bibtex

@article{42a5b2859f174638b51e6ce33bcb81c8,

title = "The cost-effectiveness of brief intervention versus brief treatment of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in the United States",

abstract = "AIMS:To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing the delivery of brief intervention (BI) with brief treatment (BT) within Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs. DESIGN:Quasi-experimental differences in observed baseline characteristics between BI and BT patients were adjusted using propensity score techniques. Incremental comparison of costs and health outcomes associated with BI and BT. SETTING:Health-care settings in four US states participating in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SBIRT grant programs. PARTICIPANTS:Ninety patients who received BT and 878 who received BI. MEASUREMENTS:Per-patient cost of SBIRT, patient demographics and six measures of substance use: proportion using alcohol, proportion using alcohol to intoxication, days of alcohol use, days of alcohol use to intoxication, proportion using drugs and days using drugs. FINDINGS:BI and BT were associated with better outcomes. The cost of SBIRT was significantly higher for BT patients ($75.54 versus 16.32, 95% confidence interval, P ",

keywords = "brief intervention, brief treatment, cost‐effectiveness, economic evaluation, SBIRT, substance abuse",

author = "Carolina Barbosa and Cowell, {Alexander J.} and Bill Dowd and Justin Landwehr and Arnie Aldridge and Jeremy Bray",

year = "2017",

month = feb,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/add.13658",

language = "English",

volume = "112",

pages = "73--81",

journal = "Addiction (Abingdon, England)",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "Suppl. 2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The cost-effectiveness of brief intervention versus brief treatment of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in the United States

AU - Barbosa, Carolina

AU - Cowell, Alexander J.

AU - Dowd, Bill

AU - Landwehr, Justin

AU - Aldridge, Arnie

AU - Bray, Jeremy

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - AIMS:To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing the delivery of brief intervention (BI) with brief treatment (BT) within Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs. DESIGN:Quasi-experimental differences in observed baseline characteristics between BI and BT patients were adjusted using propensity score techniques. Incremental comparison of costs and health outcomes associated with BI and BT. SETTING:Health-care settings in four US states participating in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SBIRT grant programs. PARTICIPANTS:Ninety patients who received BT and 878 who received BI. MEASUREMENTS:Per-patient cost of SBIRT, patient demographics and six measures of substance use: proportion using alcohol, proportion using alcohol to intoxication, days of alcohol use, days of alcohol use to intoxication, proportion using drugs and days using drugs. FINDINGS:BI and BT were associated with better outcomes. The cost of SBIRT was significantly higher for BT patients ($75.54 versus 16.32, 95% confidence interval, P

AB - AIMS:To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing the delivery of brief intervention (BI) with brief treatment (BT) within Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs. DESIGN:Quasi-experimental differences in observed baseline characteristics between BI and BT patients were adjusted using propensity score techniques. Incremental comparison of costs and health outcomes associated with BI and BT. SETTING:Health-care settings in four US states participating in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SBIRT grant programs. PARTICIPANTS:Ninety patients who received BT and 878 who received BI. MEASUREMENTS:Per-patient cost of SBIRT, patient demographics and six measures of substance use: proportion using alcohol, proportion using alcohol to intoxication, days of alcohol use, days of alcohol use to intoxication, proportion using drugs and days using drugs. FINDINGS:BI and BT were associated with better outcomes. The cost of SBIRT was significantly higher for BT patients ($75.54 versus 16.32, 95% confidence interval, P

KW - brief intervention

KW - brief treatment

KW - cost‐effectiveness

KW - economic evaluation

KW - SBIRT

KW - substance abuse

U2 - 10.1111/add.13658

DO - 10.1111/add.13658

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 28074567

VL - 112

SP - 73

EP - 81

JO - Addiction (Abingdon, England)

JF - Addiction (Abingdon, England)

IS - Suppl. 2

ER -

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords