Economic benefits of substance abuse treatment: findings from Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

We estimated long-term economic benefits and treatment costs for a sample of substance abuse clients who received treatment in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, using health, criminal activity, and earnings data from the Persistent Effects of Treatment Studies. Clients were interviewed at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 30 months following baseline. We find positive benefits from substance abuse treatment, almost of all of which were derived from reduced criminal activity and increased real earnings, with overall benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 2.8 to 4.1. The reductions in costs to society were found to be persistent over the long-term, 30-month follow-up period. On average, treatment was found to be cost beneficial regardless of the number of times a client entered treatment in the baseline or follow-up periods. Clients who entered residential treatment and then step down to less intensive care showed greater treatment benefits than clients who only received residential treatment.

Concordance of couples' prostate cancer screening recommendations from a decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether different utilities for prostate cancer screening outcomes for couples, and husbands and wives separately, lead to incongruent screening recommendations. METHODS: We evaluated survey results of 168 married couples from three family practice centers in Texas, USA. Utilities for eight adverse outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment were assessed using the time trade-off method. We assessed utilities separately for each partner and jointly for each couple. Using a previously published decision-analytic model of prostate cancer screening, we input the husband's age (starting point) and utilities for outcomes from the husband's, wife's, and couple's perspectives (to adjust for quality of life). Both group-level and individualized models were run. We also asked husbands (and wives) if they intended to be screened (or have their husbands screened) for prostate cancer in the future. RESULTS: Husbands' lower tolerance for adverse outcomes (lower utilities) was associated with lower quality-adjusted life expectancy (than their wives) for the choice of screening versus not screening. Depending on the perspective, 48 husbands (28.6%), 89 wives (53.0%), and 58 couples (34.5%) preferred screening in the individual decision-analytic models. Comparing the three perspectives, agreement in model recommendations was greatest between the husbands and the couples (82.1%), intermediate between the wives and couples (63.7%), and lowest between the husbands and wives (55.4%). Using group-aggregated utilities in the decision-analytic model tended to mask the variation in recommended strategies amongst individuals. There was no relationship between screening preferences from the model and the husbands' and wives' reported desire for screening, as the majority of subjects wanted screening. CONCLUSIONS: Discordant health preferences may yield conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer screening. The results have broad implications for informed healthcare decision making for couples.

Psychological benefits of prostate cancer screening: the role of reassurance.

OBJECTIVES: The role of reassurance in decision-making about screening for health problems is largely unknown. We examined the reassurance value of prostate cancer screening in primary care patients. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and sixty eight men, aged 45-70 years, who had no history of prostate cancer, from three family medicine practices in southeast Texas. METHODS: A hypothetical scenario was developed where men were asked to assume they did not have prostate cancer, and then to rank three predefined screening states with regard to reassurance value: (A) unknown (no screening), (B) normal by screening [a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and a digital rectal examination (DRE)] and (C) normal by biopsy (abnormal PSA test and DRE results but a negative ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy). RESULTS: Most of the men (96.8%) associated some reassurance value with screening, considering health state A to be the worst possible health state. Results from a multivariate analysis showed that preference for screening state C was associated with a family history of prostate cancer and perceived greater risk for prostate cancer compared with other men. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that prostate cancer screening may have some reassurance value for men, and that increased risk status may explain why some men prefer the added reassurance afforded by screening.