Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Brief interventions to address substance use among patients presenting to emergency departments in resource poor settings: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Dwommoh, Rebecca; Sorsdahl, Katherine; Myers, Bronwyn; Asante, Kwaku Poku; Naledi, Tracey; Stein, Dan J; Cleary, Susan.
Afiliação
  • Dwommoh R; 1Health Economics Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory, Cape Town, 7925 South Africa.
  • Sorsdahl K; 2Kintampo Health Research Centre, P.O. Box 200, Kintampo, Ghana.
  • Myers B; 3Alan J. Flisher Centre for Public Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry & Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, 7925 South Africa.
  • Asante KP; 4Department of Psychiatry & Mental Health, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, 7925 South Africa.
  • Naledi T; 5Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, 7505 South Africa.
  • Stein DJ; 2Kintampo Health Research Centre, P.O. Box 200, Kintampo, Ghana.
  • Cleary S; 6Western Cape Department of Health, 8 Riebeeck Street, Cape Town, 8001 South Africa.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc ; 16: 24, 2018.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29946229
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).
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article