Dataset Information

A systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations of internet- and mobile-based interventions for substance use disorders.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Substance use disorders (SUDs) contribute significantly to global rates of morbidity and mortality. Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) have been suggested as an adjunct to face-to-face health services. However, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of IMIs for SUDs is scant.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluations Database, NHS Health Technology Assessment Database, Office of Health Economics Evaluations Database and EconLit was conducted. We included economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials of IMIs for SUDs compared with a control group.

Results

Of 1687 abstracts identified, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Targeted conditions were alcohol use disorder (four studies) and tobacco smoking (five studies) whereas two studies included any SUD. Cost-effectiveness results demonstrated that IMIs had a firm probability of being more cost-effective than TAU (e.g. less costs per additional abstinent person). Compared with (online) psycho-education, evidence towards an additional benefit of IMIs was less clear. Regarding cost-utility (e.g. costs per quality-adjusted life year gained), except for one study, results suggested that TAU and online psycho-education would probably be more preferable than IMIs. Quality of study reporting was at least adequate.

Conclusions

The likelihood of IMIs being more cost-effective than TAU looks promising but more economic evaluations are needed in order to determine the economic merit of IMIs. With an increasing pressure on health care budgets, strategies to disseminate effective interventions at affordable costs are required. This review suggests that IMIs might carry that promise and have potential as a cost-effective strategy to scale-up existing evidence-based treatments for SUDs.

Systematic review registration

The systematic review has been registered in the PROSPERO database (no. CRD42018099486).

SUBMITTER: Buntrock C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8266535 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo summarise evidence describing the cost-effectiveness of population-based interventions targeting sodium reduction.MethodsA systematic search of published and grey literature databases and websites was conducted using specified key words. Characteristics of identified economic evaluations were recorded, and included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsTwenty studies met the study inclusion criteria and received a full paper review. Fourteen studies were identified as full economic evaluations in that they included both costs and benefits associated with an intervention measured against a comparator. Most studies were modelling exercises based on scenarios for achieving salt reduction and assumed effects on health outcomes. All 14 studies concluded that their specified intervention(s) targeting reductions in population sodium consumption were cost-effective, and in the majority of cases, were cost saving. Just over half the studies (8/14) were assessed as being of 'excellent' reporting quality, five studies fell into the 'very good' quality category and one into the 'good' category. All of the identified evaluations were based on modelling, whereby inputs for all the key parameters including the effect size were either drawn from published datasets, existing literature or based on expert advice.ConclusionDespite a clear increase in evaluations of salt reduction programs in recent years, this review identified relatively few economic evaluations of population salt reduction interventions. None of the studies were based on actual implementation of intervention(s) and the associated collection of new empirical data. The studies universally showed that population-based salt reduction strategies are likely to be cost effective or cost saving. However, given the reliance on modelling, there is a need for the effectiveness of new interventions to be evaluated in the field using strong study designs and parallel economic evaluations.

Project description:Purpose of the reviewThe prevalence of mental and substance use disorders is three to five times higher than that of the general population. Psychosocial interventions are effective in identifying and managing mental health and substance use disorders. This article aims to review the randomized control studies which have used nonpharmacological interventions alone or in combination with pharmacological interventions for managing mental and substance use disorders in prison/correctional settings.Collection and analysis of dataStudies included were randomized control trials and pilot randomized studies that assessed the impact of psychosocial interventions for prisoners with mental disorders and substance use disorders. A comprehensive search for articles was done by the primary author (Sreekanth Nair Thekkumkara) in the following databases: PubMed, ProQuest, PsychArticles, and Google Scholar (search engine), for the period June 1, 2000, to December 31, 2020.Results and conclusionsThe 21 studies included in the review had a sample size of 34 to 759. The settings of all the interventions were the prison and different types of psychosocial interventions were provided across the studies. The average duration of intervention ranged between 10 min and 120 min with the frequency of one to six sessions per week for 1 to 36 months. All the 21 Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) were nonIndian studies. Overall, the results of the included studies showed significant improvement postintervention (motivational intervention, interpersonal therapy, cognitive behavior therapy, positive psychology intervention, music therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy) on primary outcome measures such as symptom severity of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse prisoners. Positive effects were observed on secondary outcome measures such as motivation, aggression, follow up rates, and recidivism. A limited number of studies have focused on evaluating psychosocial interventions in prison settings. Most of the interventions were tested in prisoners with substance use disorder alone or in those with dual diagnoses and in high-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundWithin increasingly constrained school timetables, interventions that integrate academic and health education to reduce substance use and violence may hold promise as a category of intervention that can positively affect both academic and health outcomes. There are no current systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of such interventions or factors that affect their implementation.MethodsA total of 19 bibliographic databases and 32 websites were searched. References were also extracted from the reference lists of included studies, and experts and authors were contacted to identify relevant studies. We included reports with no restrictions on language or date. References were screened on title/abstract and those not thus excluded were screened on full report. Data extraction and appraisal followed the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre and Cochrane tools. Extracted process data were qualitatively meta-synthesised for common themes.ResultsSeventy-eight thousand four hundred fifty-one unique references were identified, and 62 reports were included. A total of 16 reports (reporting on 15 studies of 12 interventions) evaluated process. Key facilitators of integrated academic and health curricula were supportive senior management and alignment of the intervention with school ethos; a positive teaching environment, including positive perceptions around the ability to be flexible in the adaptation and delivery of integrated academic and health curricula; positive pre-existing student and teacher attitudes towards intervention content; and parental support of interventions, largely through reinforcement of messaging at home. Important barriers were over-burdened teachers, with little time to learn and implement integrated curricula.ConclusionSeveral useful facilitating and inhibiting factors linked to the implementation of interventions that integrate academic and health education for reduced substance use and/or violence were identified, providing tentative but insightful evidence of context-specific issues that may impact intervention success. However, overall, there is still a considerable gap in our understanding of how to achieve the successful implementation of these interventions.

Project description:IntroductionScaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions.Methods and analysisUsing the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.