Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

The Newcastle University research output collection, currently available on ePrints, will shortly be moving to a new open repository platform, Figshare. To prepare for the data migration we have paused adding new content to ePrints, and will resume once the new repository is launched. During this time you will continue to have access to ePrints (but no new content will appear). We will share updates here when available.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve delivery of brief interventions for heavy drinking in primary care: results from the ODHIN trial

Lookup NU author(s): Professor Peter Anderson

Downloads


Licence

This is the authors' accepted manuscript of an article that has been published in its final definitive form by Oxford University Press, 2019.

For re-use rights please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.


Abstract

© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved. BACKGROUND: Screening and brief interventions (SBIs) for heavy drinking are an effective and cost-effective approach to reducing alcohol-related harm, yet delivery rates remain low. This study uses trial data to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies to increase SBI delivery. METHODS: Data from a large cluster-randomized trial were combined with the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model, a policy appraisal tool, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of eight strategies to increase SBI delivery in primary care in England, Poland and the Netherlands: care as usual (control), training and support (TS), financial reimbursement (FR), referral of patients to an online brief intervention (eBI) and all combinations of TS, FR and eBI. cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare perspective by comparing health benefits (measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years) with total implementation costs and downstream healthcare savings for each strategy over a 30-year horizon and calculating Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: All trialled strategies were cost-effective compared to control. TS combined with FR was the most cost-effective approach in England (more effective and less costly than control) and Poland (ICER €4632 vs. next-best strategy). This combination is not cost-effective in the Netherlands, where TS alone is the most cost-effective approach (ICER €3386 vs. next-best strategy). CONCLUSIONS: Structured TS, financial incentives and access to online interventions are all estimated to be cost-effective methods of improving delivery of alcohol brief interventions. TS and FR together may be the most cost-effective approach, however this is sensitive to country characteristics and alternative BI effect assumptions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT01501552.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Angus C, Li J, Romero-Rodriguez E, Anderson P, Parrott S, Brennan A

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: European Journal of Public Health

Year: 2019

Volume: 29

Issue: 2

Pages: 219-225

Print publication date: 01/04/2019

Online publication date: 17/09/2018

Acceptance date: 02/04/2018

Date deposited: 09/04/2019

ISSN (print): 1101-1262

ISSN (electronic): 1464-360X

Publisher: Oxford University Press

URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky181

DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cky181

PubMed id: 30239676


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Share