Cost-effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK Alcohol Treatment Trial (UKATT).

Article English OPEN
Heather, Nick ; Copello, Alex ; Godfrey, Christine ; Hodgson, Ray ; UKATT Research Team (2005)

Objective \ud To compare the cost effectiveness of social behaviour and network therapy, a new treatment for alcohol problems, with that of the proved motivational enhancement therapy. Design Cost effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic randomised trial. \ud \ud Setting \ud Seven treatment sites around Birmingham, Cardiff, and Leeds. Participants 742 clients with alcohol problems; 617 (83.2%) were interviewed at 12 months and full economic data were obtained on 608 (98.5% of 617). Main economic measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs of trial treatments, and consequences for public sector resources (health care, other alcohol treatment, social services, and criminal justice services). \ud \ud Results \ud Both therapies saved about five times as much in expenditure on health, social, and criminal justice services as they cost. Neither net savings nor cost effectiveness differed significantly between the therapies, despite the average cost of social behaviour and network therapy (£221; $385; 320) being significantly more than that of motivational enhancement therapy (£129). If a QALY were worth £30 000, then the motivational therapy would have 58% chance of being more cost effective than the social therapy, and the social therapy would have 42% chance of being more cost effective than the motivational therapy. \ud \ud Conclusion \ud Participants reported highly significant reductions in drinking and associated problems and costs. The novel social behaviour and network therapy did not differ significantly in cost effectiveness from the proved motivational enhancement therapy.
  • References (25)
    25 references, page 1 of 3

    1 Leontaridi R. Alcohol misuse: how much does it cost? London: Cabinet Office, 2003. www.strategy.gov.uk/files/pdf/econ.pdf (accessed 25 April 2005).

    2 Ludbrook A, Godfrey C, Wyness L, Parrott S, Haw S, Napper M, et al. Effective and costeffective measures to reduce alcohol misuse in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Health Department, 2001.

    3 McCollister KE, French MT. The relative contribution of outcome domains in the total economic benefit of addiction interventions: a review of first findings. Addiction 2003;98:1647-59.

    4 Holder HD, Longabaugh R, Miller WR, Rubonis AV. The cost effectiveness of treatment for alcoholism: a first approximation. J Stud Alcohol 1991;52:517-40.

    5 Slattery J, Chick J, Cochrane M, Craig J, Godfrey C, Kohli H, et al. Prevention of relapse in alcohol dependence. Health technology assessment report 3. Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland, 2003.

    6 Cisler R, Holder HD, Longabaugh R, Stout RL, Zweben A. Actual and estimated replication costs for alcohol treatment modalities: case study from project MATCH. J Stud Alcohol 1998;50:503-12.

    7 Holder HD, Cisler R, Longabaugh R, Stout RL, Treno AJ, Zweben A. Alcoholism treatment and medical care costs from project MATCH. Addiction 2000;95:999-1014.

    8 UKATT Research Team. United Kingdom alcohol treatment trial (UKATT): hypotheses, design and methods. Alcohol Alcohol 2001;36:11-21.

    9 UKATT Research Team. Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT). BMJ 2005;331:541-4.

    10 Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2002.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    364
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Northumbria Research Link - IRUS-UK 0 364
Share - Bookmark