Holm Astrid Ledgaard, Veerman Lennert, Cobiac Linda, Ekholm Ola, Diderichsen Finn
Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 5;9(2):e88041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088041. eCollection 2014.
Excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of many diseases and injuries, and the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study estimated that 6% of the burden of disease in Denmark is due to alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption thus places a considerable economic burden on society.
We analysed the cost-effectiveness of six interventions aimed at preventing alcohol abuse in the adult Danish population: 30% increased taxation, increased minimum legal drinking age, advertisement bans, limited hours of retail sales, and brief and longer individual interventions. Potential health effects were evaluated as changes in incidence, prevalence and mortality of alcohol-related diseases and injuries. Net costs were calculated as the sum of intervention costs and cost offsets related to treatment of alcohol-related outcomes, based on health care costs from Danish national registers. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated by calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each intervention. We also created an intervention pathway to determine the optimal sequence of interventions and their combined effects.
Three of the analysed interventions (advertising bans, limited hours of retail sales and taxation) were cost-saving, and the remaining three interventions were all cost-effective. Net costs varied from € -17 million per year for advertisement ban to € 8 million for longer individual intervention. Effectiveness varied from 115 disability-adjusted life years (DALY) per year for minimum legal drinking age to 2,900 DALY for advertisement ban. The total annual effect if all interventions were implemented would be 7,300 DALY, with a net cost of € -30 million.
Our results show that interventions targeting the whole population were more effective than individual-focused interventions. A ban on alcohol advertising, limited hours of retail sale and increased taxation had the highest probability of being cost-saving and should thus be first priority for implementation.
过量饮酒会增加患多种疾病和受伤的风险,《2010年全球疾病负担》研究估计,丹麦6%的疾病负担归因于饮酒。饮酒因此给社会带来了相当大的经济负担。
我们分析了旨在预防丹麦成年人口酗酒的六种干预措施的成本效益:提高30%的税收、提高法定最低饮酒年龄、禁止广告、限制零售营业时间,以及简短和较长时间的个体干预。潜在的健康影响被评估为与酒精相关的疾病和伤害的发病率、患病率和死亡率的变化。净成本根据丹麦国家登记册中的医疗保健成本,计算为干预成本与与酒精相关结果治疗相关的成本抵消之和。通过计算每种干预措施的增量成本效益比(ICER)来评估成本效益。我们还创建了一个干预路径,以确定干预措施的最佳顺序及其综合效果。
所分析的六种干预措施中的三种(禁止广告、限制零售营业时间和税收)节省了成本,其余三种干预措施均具有成本效益。净成本从每年-1700万欧元的广告禁令到每年800万欧元的较长时间个体干预不等。效果从法定最低饮酒年龄每年115个伤残调整生命年(DALY)到广告禁令每年2900个DALY不等。如果实施所有干预措施,每年的总效果将为7300个DALY,净成本为-3000万欧元。
我们的结果表明,针对全体人口的干预措施比针对个体的干预措施更有效。禁止酒精广告、限制零售营业时间和提高税收最有可能节省成本,因此应作为实施的首要优先事项。