E Michael Foster1, Damon Jones. 1. School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7445, USA. emfoster@unc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the cost-effectiveness of the Fast Track intervention, a multi-year, multi-component intervention designed to reduce violence among at-risk children. A previous report documented the favorable effect of intervention on the highest-risk group of ninth-graders diagnosed with conduct disorder, as well as self-reported delinquency. The current report addressed the cost-effectiveness of the intervention for these measures of program impact. DESIGN: Costs of the intervention were estimated using program budgets. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed to determine the cost per unit of improvement in the 3 outcomes measured in the 10th year of the study. RESULTS: Examination of the total sample showed that the intervention was not cost-effective at likely levels of policymakers' willingness to pay for the key outcomes. Subsequent analysis of those most at risk, however, showed that the intervention likely was cost-effective given specified willingness-to-pay criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the intervention is cost-effective for the children at highest risk. From a policy standpoint, this finding is encouraging because such children are likely to generate higher costs for society over their lifetimes. However, substantial barriers to cost-effectiveness remain, such as the ability to effectively identify and recruit such higher-risk children in future implementations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To examine the cost-effectiveness of the Fast Track intervention, a multi-year, multi-component intervention designed to reduce violence among at-risk children. A previous report documented the favorable effect of intervention on the highest-risk group of ninth-graders diagnosed with conduct disorder, as well as self-reported delinquency. The current report addressed the cost-effectiveness of the intervention for these measures of program impact. DESIGN: Costs of the intervention were estimated using program budgets. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed to determine the cost per unit of improvement in the 3 outcomes measured in the 10th year of the study. RESULTS: Examination of the total sample showed that the intervention was not cost-effective at likely levels of policymakers' willingness to pay for the key outcomes. Subsequent analysis of those most at risk, however, showed that the intervention likely was cost-effective given specified willingness-to-pay criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the intervention is cost-effective for the children at highest risk. From a policy standpoint, this finding is encouraging because such children are likely to generate higher costs for society over their lifetimes. However, substantial barriers to cost-effectiveness remain, such as the ability to effectively identify and recruit such higher-risk children in future implementations.
Authors: Karen L Bierman; John D Coie; Kenneth A Dodge; E Michael Foster; Mark T Greenberg; John E Lochman; Robert J McMahon; Ellen E Pinderhughes Journal: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol Date: 2004-12
Authors: David S Salkever; Stephen Johnston; Mustafa C Karakus; Nicholas S Ialongo; Eric P Slade; Elizabeth A Stuart Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2008-03-15
Authors: Amy E Street; Anthony J Rosellini; Robert J Ursano; Steven G Heeringa; Eric D Hill; John Monahan; James A Naifeh; Maria V Petukhova; Ben Y Reis; Nancy A Sampson; Paul D Bliese; Murray B Stein; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Clin Psychol Sci Date: 2016-07-29