Yates B T
Department of Psychology, American University, Washington, DC 20016-8062.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994 Aug;62(4):729-36. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.4.729.
Most research in clinical psychology and related disciplines does not measure, report, or analyze costs, cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit analysis. Reasons for this are discussed. It may be thought, for example, that costs are trivial to measure. Data are presented to show that the values of resources consumed in treatment (i.e., costs) actually can be quite complex to assess accurately and completely. Research findings are assembled to show that costs, as experienced by clients, may be beneficial to assess in that they can be significantly related to the outcomes of treatment. Empirical findings also show that costs also can be useful to measure because costs and outcomes can be related inversely rather than directly (i.e., clients may benefit most from treatments that cost less than several viable alternatives). Finally, perceived impediments to assessing costs and to cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in psychology are considered. Dialogue is encouraged on the scientific study of relationships between (a) monetary and other costs, (b) treatment techniques and treatment delivery systems, and (c) psychological and economic outcomes.
临床心理学及相关学科的大多数研究并未衡量、报告或分析成本、成本效益或成本效益分析。文中讨论了这样做的原因。例如,可能有人认为成本微不足道,无需衡量。但所呈现的数据表明,治疗中消耗的资源价值(即成本)实际上要准确、全面地评估相当复杂。文中汇总了研究结果,以表明从患者角度来看,评估成本可能有益,因为成本与治疗结果可能显著相关。实证研究结果还表明,成本也值得衡量,因为成本与结果可能呈反比而非正比(即患者可能从成本低于其他几种可行替代方案的治疗中获益最多)。最后,文中考虑了在心理学中评估成本以及进行成本效益和成本效益分析时所察觉到的障碍。鼓励就以下方面的关系开展科学研究进行对话:(a)货币成本和其他成本,(b)治疗技术与治疗提供系统,以及(c)心理和经济结果。