Ruben M. W. A. Drost

A web-based computer-tailored alcohol prevention program for adolescents: cost-effectiveness and intersectoral costs and benefits

Background Preventing excessive alcohol use among adolescents is important not only to foster individual and public health, but also to reduce alcohol-related costs inside and outside the health care sector. Computer tailoring can be both effective and cost-effective for working with many lifestyle behaviors, yet the available information on the cost-effectiveness of computer tailoring for reducing alcohol use by adolescents is limited as is information on the costs and benefits pertaining to sectors outside the health care sector, also known as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Objective The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a Web-based computer-tailored intervention for reducing alcohol use and binge drinking by adolescents from a health care perspective (excluding ICBs) and from a societal perspective (including ICBs). Methods Data used were from the Alcoholic Alert study, a cluster randomized controlled trial with randomization at the level of schools into two conditions. Participants either played a game with tailored feedback on alcohol awareness after the baseline assessment (intervention condition) or received care as usual (CAU), meaning that they had the opportunity to play the game subsequent to the final measurement (waiting list control condition). Data were recorded at baseline (T0=January/February 2014) and after 4 months (T1=May/June 2014) and were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), both from a health care perspective and a societal perspective. Stochastic uncertainty in the data was dealt with by using nonparametric bootstraps (5000 simulated replications). Additional sensitivity analyses were conducted based on excluding cost outliers. Subgroup cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted based on several background variables, including gender, age, educational level, religion, and ethnicity. Results From both the health care perspective and the societal perspective for both outcome measures, the intervention was more costly and more effective in comparison with CAU. ICERs differed for both perspectives, namely €40 and €79 from the health care perspective to €62 and €144 for the societal perspective per incremental reduction of one glass of alcohol per week and one binge drinking occasion per 30 days, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed, from both perspectives and for both outcome measures, that the intervention was cost-effective for older adolescents (aged 17-19 years) and those at a lower educational level and, from a health care perspective, the male and nonreligious adolescent subgroups. Conclusions Computer-tailored feedback could be a cost-effective way to target alcohol use and binge drinking among adolescents. Including ICBs in the economic evaluation had an impact on the cost-effectiveness results of the analysis. It could be worthwhile to aim the intervention specifically at specific subgroups. Trial Registration Nederlands Trial Register: NTR4048; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4048 (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6c7omN8wG)

Cost-effectiveness of preventive case management for parents with a mental illness: A randomized controlled trial from three economic perspectives

BackgroundThe children of parents with a mental illness (COPMI) are at increased risk for developing costly psychiatric disorders because of multiple risk factors which threaten parenting quality and thereby child development. Preventive basic care management (PBCM) is an intervention aimed at reducing risk factors and addressing the needs of COPMI-families in different domains. The intervention may lead to financial consequences in the healthcare sector and in other sectors, also known as inter-sectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PBCM from three perspectives: a narrow healthcare perspective, a social care perspective (including childcare costs) and a broad societal perspective (including all ICBs).MethodsEffects on parenting quality (as measured by the HOME) and costs during an 18-month period were studied in in a randomized controlled trial. Families received PBCM (n = 49) or care as usual (CAU) (n = 50). For all three perspectives, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Stochastic uncertainty in the data was dealt with using non-parametric bootstraps. Sensitivity analyses included calculating ICERs excluding cost outliers, and making an adjustment for baseline cost differences.ResultsParenting quality improved in the PBCM group and declined in the CAU group, and PBCM was shown to be more costly than CAU. ICERs differ from 461 Euros (healthcare perspective) to 215 Euros (social care perspective) to 175 Euros (societal perspective) per one point improvement on the HOME T-score. The results of the sensitivity analyses, based on complete cases and excluding cost outliers, support the finding that the ICER is lower when adopting a broader perspective. The subgroup analysis and the analysis with baseline adjustments resulted in higher ICERs.ConclusionsThis study is the first economic evaluation of family-focused preventive basic care management for COPMI in psychiatric and family services. The effects of the chosen perspective on determining the cost-effectiveness of PBCM underscore the importance of economic studies of interdepartmental policies. Future studies focusing on the cost-effectiveness of programs like PBCM in other sites and studies with more power are encouraged as this may improve the quality of information used in supporting decision making.Trial registrationNTR2569, date of registration 2010-10-12.

Valuing inter-sectoral costs and benefits of interventions in the healthcare sector: methods for obtaining unit prices.

ABSTRACT Introduction: There is a lack of knowledge about methods for valuing health intervention-related costs and monetary benefits in the education and criminal justice sectors, also known as ‘inter-sectoral costs and benefits’ (ICBs). The objective of this study was to develop methods for obtaining unit prices for the valuation of ICBs. Methods: By conducting an exploratory literature study and expert interviews, several generic methods were developed. The methods’ feasibility was assessed through application in the Netherlands. Results were validated in an expert meeting, which was attended by policy makers, public health experts, health economists and HTA-experts, and discussed at several international conferences and symposia. Results: The study resulted in four methods, including the opportunity cost method (A) and valuation using available unit prices (B), self-constructed unit prices (C) or hourly labor costs (D). Discussion: The methods developed can be used internationally and are valuable for the broad international field of HTA.

Health-Related Resource-Use Measurement Instruments for Intersectoral Costs and Benefits in the Education and Criminal Justice Sectors

BackgroundIntersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs), i.e. costs and benefits of healthcare interventions outside the healthcare sector, can be a crucial component in economic evaluations from the societal perspective. Pivotal to their estimation is the existence of sound resource-use measurement (RUM) instruments; however, RUM instruments for ICBs in the education or criminal justice sectors have not yet been systematically collated or their psychometric quality assessed. This review aims to fill this gap.MethodsTo identify relevant instruments, the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement (DIRUM) was searched. Additionally, a systematic literature review was conducted in seven electronic databases to detect instruments containing ICB items used in economic evaluations. Finally, studies evaluating the psychometric quality of these instruments were searched.ResultsTwenty-six unique instruments were included. Most frequently, ICB items measured school absenteeism, tutoring, classroom assistance or contacts with legal representatives, police custody/prison detainment and court appearances, with the highest number of items listed in the Client Service Receipt Inventory/Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory/Client Service Receipt Inventory–Children’s Version (CSRI/CSSRI/CSRI-C), Studying the Scope of Parental Expenditures (SCOPE) and Self-Harm Intervention, Family Therapy (SHIFT) instruments. ICBs in the education sector were especially relevant for age-related developmental disorders and chronic diseases, while criminal justice resource use seems more important in mental health, including alcohol-related disorders or substance abuse. Evidence on the validity or reliability of ICB items was published for two instruments only.ConclusionWith a heterogeneous variety of ICBs found to be relevant for several disease areas but many ICB instruments applied in one study only (21/26 instruments), setting-up an international task force to, for example, develop an internationally adaptable instrument is recommended.

Gezondheid in een breder perspectief : Intersectorale kosten en baten

Samenvatting‘Preventie is geen kostenpost, maar opbrengst’ zo luidt de NCVGZ 2015 Twitter-quote van Mariëtte Hamer (SER).1Samen met Machteld Huber (Louis Bolk Instituut), Alexander Rinnooy Kan (Agenda vd Zorg), Jolande Sap (NPHF) en Joris Slaets (UMC Groningen) maakte ze deel uit van het prominentenpanel tijdens het waardendebat, waarmee de aftrap werd gegeven voor de tweede dag van het Nederlands Congres Volksgezondheid in de Doelen in Rotterdam. Ik, en met mij andere gezondheidseconomen, zat op het puntje van mijn stoel: Hoewel het thema van het debat betrekking had op nastrevenswaardige maatschappelijke idealen en motieven voor de publieke gezondheid, ging het naast de waarden opvallend vaak over de economische waarde van gezondheid. Interventies gericht op de publieke gezondheid hebben niet alleen kosten, maar ook baten voor het individu en voor de maatschappij als geheel. Verwarring of niet, de boodschap was duidelijk: Gezondheid is niet alleen een doel, maar ook een middel voor een grotere maatschappelijke welvaart.