Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy

Economic evaluation of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Common mental disorders (CMDs) constitute a major public health and economic burden on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic reviews of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs are limited. This systematic review examines methods, reports findings and appraises the quality of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs. We searched a range of bibliographic databases (including PubMed, EconLit, APA-PsycINFO and Cochrane library) and the African Journals Online (AJoL) and Google Scholar platforms. We used a pre-populated template to extract data and the Drummond & Jefferson checklist for quality appraisal. We present results as a narrative synthesis. The review included 26 studies, mostly from Asia (12) and Africa (9). The majority were cost-effectiveness analyses (12), some were cost-utility analyses (5), with one cost-benefit analysis or combinations of economic evaluations (8). Most interventions were considered either cost-effective or potentially cost-effective (22), with 3 interventions being not cost-effective. Limitations were noted regarding appropriateness of conclusions drawn on cost-effectiveness, the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds and application of 'societal' incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to reflect value for money (VfM) of treatments. Non-specialist health workers (NSHWs) delivered most of the treatments (16) for low-cost delivery at scale, and costs should reflect the true opportunity cost of NSHWs' time to support the development of a sustainable cadre of health care providers. There is a 4-fold increase in economic evaluations of CMD psychological treatments in the last decade over the previous one. Yet, findings from this review highlight the need for better application of economic evaluation methodology to support resource allocation towards the World Health Organization recommended first-line treatments of CMDs. We suggest impact inventories to capture societal economic gains and propose a VfM assessment framework to guide researchers in evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Integrating traditional practices and social network visualization to prevent substance use: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial among urban Native American emerging adults

BACKGROUND

Nonmedical use of prescription opioids (defined as taking opioid medications for hedonic effects or in a manner other than prescribed) and the use of heroin have emerged in recent years as major public health concerns in the United States. Of particular concern is the prevalence of opioid use among emerging adults (ages 18-25), as this is a developmental period of heightened vulnerability and critical social, neurological, and psychological development. Data from 2015 show that American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people have the highest rates of diagnosis for opioid use disorders (OUDs). One recent study found that the overdose death rate among urban-dwelling AI/AN individuals was 1.4 times higher compared to those living in rural areas. To date, there are no evidence-based prevention programs addressing opioid use among urban AI/AN emerging adults that integrate culturally-appropriate strategies with evidence-based treatment. Traditions and Connections for Urban Native Americans (TACUNA) builds on our prior work with AI/AN communities across California to develop and evaluate culturally appropriate programming to address opioid, alcohol, and cannabis use among urban AI/AN emerging adults.

METHODS/DESIGN

In a randomized controlled trial, 18-25 year old urban AI/AN emerging adults will receive either TACUNA (n = 185), which comprises three virtual workshops utilizing motivational interviewing, social network visualization, and integrating traditional practices and a wellness circle, or one virtual culturally sensitive opioid education workshop (n = 185). We will evaluate intervention effects on primary outcomes of frequency of opioid, alcohol, and cannabis use, as well as secondary outcomes of social network characteristics and cultural connectedness, over a 12-month period.

DISCUSSION

This project has the potential to expand the range and effectiveness of opioid, alcohol, and cannabis services for urban AI/AN emerging adults by addressing the opioid epidemic and use of other substances at both the community and individual level. In addition, it provides important culturally grounded conceptual and practical information to advance the field of substance use interventions and enhance resiliency among this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04617938. Registered October 26, 2020 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04617938 .

Economic evaluations of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Common mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent conditions that constitute a major public health and economic burden on society in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the increased demand for economic evidence to support resource allocation for scaled-up implementation of mental health services in these contexts, economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs remain scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The proposed systematic review aims to synthesize findings on methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs and appraise quality.

METHODS

We will identify, select, and extract data from published economic evaluations of psychological interventions for CMDs conducted in LMICs. We will search bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and the African Journals Online (AJOL) and Google Scholar platforms. Only full economic evaluations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), or Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)) of psychological treatments for CMDs (defined as depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders) conducted in LMICs will be included. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication, perspective, follow-up duration or sample size. Data extraction will be guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The results presented will be examined using a narrative synthesis approach. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Drummond & Jefferson checklist.

CONCLUSION

The fledgling evidence base in this area provides an opportunity to promote improved economic evaluation methods in line with repeated calls for economic evidence alongside effectiveness evidence in these settings. A rigorously developed economic evaluation evidence base will support resource allocation decisions for scaled up implementation of psychological interventions in LMIC settings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020185277.

Cost-effectiveness of electronic- and clinician-delivered screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment for women in reproductive health centers

AIMS

To determine the cost-effectiveness of electronic- and clinician-delivered SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) for reducing primary substance use among women treated in reproductive health centers.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

New Haven, CT, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 439 women seeking routine care in reproductive health centers who used cigarettes, risky amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs or misused prescription medication.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to enhanced usual care (EUC, n = 151), electronic-delivered SBIRT (e-SBIRT, n = 143) or clinician-delivered SBIRT (SBIRT, n = 145).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was days of primary substance abstinence during the 6-month follow-up period. To account for the possibility that patients might substitute a different drug for their primary substance during the 6-month follow-up period, we also considered the number of days of abstinence from all substances. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves determined the relative cost-effectiveness of the three conditions from both the clinic and patient perspectives.

FINDINGS

From a health-care provider perspective, e-SBIRT is likely (with probability greater than 0.5) to be cost-effective for any willingness-to-pay value for an additional day of primary-substance abstinence and an additional day of all-substance abstinence. From a patient perspective, EUC is most likely to be the cost-effective intervention when the willingness to pay for an additional day of abstinence (both primary-substance and all-substance) is less than $0.18 and e-SBIRT is most likely to be the cost-effective intervention when the willingness to pay for an additional day of abstinence (both primary-substance and all-substance) is greater than $0.18.

CONCLUSIONS

e-SBIRT could be a cost-effective approach, from both health-care provider and patient perspectives, for use in reproductive health centers to help women reduce substance misuse.

Integrating a brief mental health intervention into primary care services for patients with HIV and diabetes in South Africa: study protocol for a trial-based economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Depression and alcohol use disorders are international public health priorities for which there is a substantial treatment gap. Brief mental health interventions delivered by lay health workers in primary care services may reduce this gap. There is limited economic evidence assessing the cost-effectiveness of such interventions in low-income and middle-income countries. This paper describes the proposed economic evaluation of a health systems intervention testing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of two task-sharing approaches to integrating services for common mental disorders with HIV and diabetes primary care services.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This evaluation will be conducted as part of a three-armed cluster randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness. Trial clinical outcome measures will include primary outcomes for risk of depression and alcohol use, and secondary outcomes for risk of chronic disease (HIV and diabetes) treatment failure. The cost-effectiveness analysis will evaluate cost per unit change in Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test and Centre for Epidemiological Studies scale on Depression scores as well as cost per unit change in HIV RNA viral load and haemoglobin A1c, producing results of provider and patient cost per patient year for each study arm and chronic disease. The cost utility analyses will provide results of cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Additional analyses relevant for implementation including budget impact analyses will be conducted to inform the development of a business case for scaling up the country's investment in mental health services.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Western Cape Department of Health (WCDoH) (WC2016_RP6_9), the South African Medical Research Council (EC 004-2/2015), the University of Cape Town (089/2015) and Oxford University (OxTREC 2-17) provided ethical approval for this study. Results dissemination will include policy briefs, social media, peer-reviewed papers, a policy dialogue workshop and press briefings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PACTR201610001825405.

Brief interventions to address substance use among patients presenting to emergency departments in resource poor settings: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

There are limited data describing the cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for substance use in resource-poor settings. Using a patient and provider perspective, this study investigates the cost-effectiveness of a brief motivational interviewing (MI) intervention versus a combined intervention of MI and problem solving therapy (MI-PST) for reducing substance use among patients presenting to emergency departments, in comparison to a control group.

Methods

Effectiveness data were extracted from Project STRIVE (Substance use and Trauma InterVention) conducted in South Africa. Patients were randomised to either receive 1 session of MI (n = 113) or MI in addition to four sessions of PST (n = 109) or no intervention [control (n = 110)]. Costs included the direct health care costs associated with the interventions. Patient costs included out of pocket payments incurred accessing the MI-PST intervention. Outcome measures were patients’ scores on the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Use Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

Results

Cost per patient was low in all three groups; US$16, US$33 and US$11, and for MI, MI-PST and control respectively. Outcomes were 0.92 (MI), 1.06 (MI-PST) and 0.88 (control) for ASSIST scores; and 0.74 (MI), 1.27 (MI-PST) and 0.53 (control) for CES-D scores. In comparison to the control group, the MI intervention costs an additional US$119 per unit reduction in ASSIST score, (US$20 for CES-D); MI-PST in comparison to MI costs US$131 or US$33 per unit reduction in ASSIST or CES-D scores respectively. The sensitivity analyses showed that increasing the number of patients who screened positive and thus received the intervention could improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

Conclusion

MI or MI-PST interventions delivered by lay counsellors have the potential to be cost-effective strategies for the reduction of substance use disorder and depressive symptoms among patients presenting at emergency departments in resource poor settings. Given the high economic, social and health care cost of substance use disorders in South Africa, these results suggest that these interventions should be carefully considered for future implementation.

Trial registration This study is part of a trial registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR201308000591418)

Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Among Medicaid Patients in Wisconsin: Impacts on Healthcare Utilization and Costs

Unhealthy substance use in the USA results in significant mortality and morbidity. This study measured the effectiveness of paraprofessional-administered substance use screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) services on subsequent healthcare utilization and costs. The pre-post with comparison group study design used a population-based sample of Medicaid patients 18-64 years receiving healthcare services from 33 clinics in Wisconsin. Substance use screens were completed by 7367 Medicaid beneficiaries, who were compared to 6751 randomly selected treatment-as-usual Medicaid patients. Compared to unscreened patients, those screened changed their utilization over the 24-month follow-up period by 0.143 outpatient days per member per month (PMPM) (p < 0.001), -0.036 inpatient days PMPM (p < 0.05), -0.001 inpatient admissions PMPM (non-significant), and -0.004 emergency department days PMPM (non-significant). The best estimate of net annual savings is $391 per Medicaid adult beneficiary (2014 dollars). SBIRT was associated with significantly greater outpatient visits and significant reductions in inpatient days among working-age Medicaid beneficiaries in Wisconsin.

Sustaining SBIRT in the wild: simulating revenues and costs for Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs

AIMS

To examine the conditions under which Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs can be sustained by health insurance payments.

DESIGN

A mathematical model was used to estimate the number of patients needed for revenues to exceed costs.

SETTING

Three medical settings in the United States were examined: in-patient, out-patient and emergency department. Components of SBIRT were delivered by combinations of health-care practitioners (generalists) and behavioral health specialists.

PARTICIPANTS

Practitioners in seven SBIRT programs who received grants from the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

MEASUREMENTS

Program costs and revenues were measured using data from grantees. Patient flows were measured from administrative data and adjusted with prevalence and screening estimates from the literature.

FINDINGS

SBIRT can be sustained through health insurance reimbursement in out-patient and emergency department settings in most staffing mixes. To sustain SBIRT in in-patient programs, a patient flow larger than the national average may be needed; if that flow is achieved, the range of screens required to maintain a surplus is narrow. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the results are very sensitive to changes in the proportion of insured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs in the United States can be sustained by health insurance payments under a variety of staffing models. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs can be sustained only in an in-patient setting with above-average patient flow (more than 2500 screens). Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment programs in out-patient and emergency department settings can be sustained with below-average patient flows (fewer than 125 000 out-patient visits and fewer than 27 000 emergency department visits).

A microsimulation cost-utility analysis of alcohol screening and brief intervention to reduce heavy alcohol consumption in Canada

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is a public health intervention that has been shown to be effective in reducing heavy alcohol consumption. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing universal alcohol SBI in primary care in Canada.

DESIGN

We developed a microsimulation model of alcohol consumption and its effects on 18 alcohol-related causes of death.

SETTING

The model simulates a Canadian population.

PARTICIPANTS

The model simulates individuals and their alcohol consumption on a continuous scale starting from age 17 years to death.

INTERVENTIONS

The reference case assumes no SBI in Canada. The base case assumes screening was conducted using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) at a threshold score of 8. Additional analyses included evaluating SBI using the AUDIT at threshold scores between 4 and 8 or the Derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) at threshold scores between 3 and 7.

MEASUREMENTS

The model estimates the direct health-care costs, life years gained and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, which are then used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SBI versus no SBI.

FINDINGS

SBI with AUDIT (at a threshold score of 8) had an ICER of $8729/QALY. Our results suggest that using AUDIT thresholds between 8 and 4, inclusive, would be cost-effective for the whole population, as well as for men and women individually. Our results suggest that the AUDIT-C would be cost-effective at thresholds of 7 to 3, inclusive, for men, women and the whole population.

CONCLUSIONS

In Canada, screening and brief intervention via Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) to reduce heavy alcohol consumption appears to be cost-effective for men and women at Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) thresholds of 8 and lower and at Derived Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) thresholds of 7 and lower.

SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban Federally Qualified Health Centers

BACKGROUND

Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study.

METHODS

This study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N=7) guided by Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability.

DISCUSSION

The study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offer guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.

Costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention in medical settings: a review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

This article summarizes the literature on the implementation costs of alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) in medical settings.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched using SBI- and cost-related terms. Methodological approaches and cost estimates were abstracted from each study and categorized based on the cost methodology. Costs were updated to 2009 U.S. dollars. To determine a summary cost measure, we excluded outliers and computed the median of the remaining cost estimates.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with cost estimates were identified for further study. Costs ranged from $0.51 to $601.50 per screen and from $3.41 to $243.01 per brief intervention (BI). Cost estimates were lower when an activity-based cost methodology was used, in primary care settings, and when the provider was not a doctor. The median summary cost of a screen is approximately $4, and the median summary cost of a BI is approximately $48.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening cost estimates had more variation than BI cost estimates. Provider type and service delivery time drive the cost variation. Interpretation of cost differences was limited by insufficient reporting of the cost methodology. Cost estimates presented here are similar in size to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and Current Procedural Terminology reimbursement amounts, suggesting that insurance-based service reimbursement may be sufficient to sustain alcohol SBI in practice.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of motivational interviewing with feedback to reduce drinking among a sample of college students

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of combining motivational interviewing with feedback to address heavy drinking among university freshmen.

METHOD

Microcosting methods were used in a prospective cost and cost-effectiveness study of a randomized trial of assessment only (AO), motivational interviewing (MI), feedback only (FB), and motivational interviewing with feedback (MIFB) at a large public university in the southeastern United States. Students were recruited and screened into the study during freshman classes based on recent heavy drinking. A total of 727 students (60% female) were randomized, and 656 had sufficient data at 3-months' follow-up to be included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in average drinks per drinking occasion and number of heavy drinking occasions.

RESULTS

Mean intervention costs per student were $16.51 for MI, $17.33 for FB, and $36.03 for MIFB. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed two cost-effective interventions for both outcomes: AO ($0 per student) and MIFB ($36 per student).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first prospective cost-effectiveness study to our knowledge to examine MI for heavy drinking among students in a university setting. Despite being the most expensive intervention, MIFB was the most effective intervention and may be a cost-effective intervention, depending on a university's willingness to pay for changes in the considered outcomes.

The potential cost-effectiveness of general practitioner delivered brief intervention for alcohol misuse: evidence from rural Australia

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to model General Practitioner (GP) delivered screening and brief intervention (BI), and to identify the costs per additional risky drinker who reduces alcohol consumption to low-risk levels, relative to current practice.

METHOD

A decision model and nine different scenarios were developed to assess outcomes and costs of GP-delivered screening and BI on the potential number of risky drinkers who reduce their alcohol consumption to low-risk levels in 10 rural communities in New South Wales, Australia.

FINDINGS

Based on evidence from current practice, approximately 19% of all risky drinkers visiting GPs annually would reduce alcohol consumption to low-risk levels, of which 0.7% would do so because of GP-delivered screening and BI. If rates of screening and BI are increased to 100%, 36% of these risky drinkers would reduce their drinking to low risk-levels. Alternatively, increments of 10% and 20% in GP-delivered screening and BI would reduce the proportion of risky drinkers by 2.1% and 4.2% respectively. The most cost-effective outcome per additional risky drinker reducing their drinking relative to current practice would be if all of these risky drinkers are screened alone with an ICER of AUD$197.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that increments in rates of screening and BI delivered by GPs can result in cost-effective reductions per additional risky drinkers reducing their drinking to low-risk levels, relative to current practice. They also imply that achieving substantial reductions in the prevalence of risky drinking in a community will require strategies other than opportunistic screening and BIs by GPs.