Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Addiction. 2019 Sep;114(9):1659-1669. doi: 10.1111/add.14668. Epub 2019 Jun 28.
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.
Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized controlled trial.
New Haven, CT, USA.
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.
Participants were randomized to enhanced usual care (EUC, n = 151), electronic-delivered SBIRT (e-SBIRT, n = 143) or clinician-delivered SBIRT (SBIRT, n = 145).
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.
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.
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.
确定电子和临床医生提供的 SBIRT(筛查、简短干预和转介治疗)在减少生殖健康中心治疗的女性原发性物质使用方面的成本效益。
基于随机对照试验的成本效益分析。
美国康涅狄格州纽黑文。
在生殖健康中心寻求常规护理的 439 名使用香烟、危险量酒精、非法药物或误用处方药物的女性中抽取的方便样本。
参与者被随机分配到增强的常规护理(EUC,n=151)、电子提供的 SBIRT(e-SBIRT,n=143)或临床医生提供的 SBIRT(SBIRT,n=145)。
主要结果是在 6 个月的随访期间原发性物质禁欲的天数。为了考虑到患者在 6 个月的随访期间可能用不同的药物替代他们的主要物质,我们还考虑了所有物质禁欲的天数。增量成本效益比和成本效益可接受性曲线从诊所和患者的角度确定了三种条件的相对成本效益。
从医疗保健提供者的角度来看,对于任何额外一天的原发性物质禁欲和额外一天的所有物质禁欲的意愿支付价值,e-SBIRT 很可能是具有成本效益的。从患者的角度来看,当愿意为额外一天的禁欲(无论是原发性物质还是所有物质)支付少于 0.18 美元时,EUC 最有可能成为具有成本效益的干预措施,而当愿意为额外一天的禁欲(无论是原发性物质还是所有物质)支付大于 0.18 美元时,e-SBIRT 最有可能成为具有成本效益的干预措施。
从医疗保健提供者和患者的角度来看,e-SBIRT 可能是生殖健康中心用于帮助女性减少物质滥用的一种具有成本效益的方法。