OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of combining motivational interviewing with feedback to address heavy drinking among university freshmen. METHOD: Microcosting methods were used in a prospective cost and cost-effectiveness study of a randomized trial of assessment only (AO), motivational interviewing (MI), feedback only (FB), and motivational interviewing with feedback (MIFB) at a large public university in the southeastern United States. Students were recruited and screened into the study during freshman classes based on recent heavy drinking. A total of 727 students (60% female) were randomized, and 656 had sufficient data at 3-months' follow-up to be included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in average drinks per drinking occasion and number of heavy drinking occasions. RESULTS:Mean intervention costs per student were $16.51 for MI, $17.33 for FB, and $36.03 for MIFB. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed two cost-effective interventions for both outcomes: AO ($0 per student) and MIFB ($36 per student). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective cost-effectiveness study to our knowledge to examine MI for heavy drinking among students in a university setting. Despite being the most expensive intervention, MIFB was the most effective intervention and may be a cost-effective intervention, depending on a university's willingness to pay for changes in the considered outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of combining motivational interviewing with feedback to address heavy drinking among university freshmen. METHOD: Microcosting methods were used in a prospective cost and cost-effectiveness study of a randomized trial of assessment only (AO), motivational interviewing (MI), feedback only (FB), and motivational interviewing with feedback (MIFB) at a large public university in the southeastern United States. Students were recruited and screened into the study during freshman classes based on recent heavy drinking. A total of 727 students (60% female) were randomized, and 656 had sufficient data at 3-months' follow-up to be included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in average drinks per drinking occasion and number of heavy drinking occasions. RESULTS: Mean intervention costs per student were $16.51 for MI, $17.33 for FB, and $36.03 for MIFB. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed two cost-effective interventions for both outcomes: AO ($0 per student) and MIFB ($36 per student). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective cost-effectiveness study to our knowledge to examine MI for heavy drinking among students in a university setting. Despite being the most expensive intervention, MIFB was the most effective intervention and may be a cost-effective intervention, depending on a university's willingness to pay for changes in the considered outcomes.
Authors: Monique Clinton-Sherrod; Antonio A Morgan-Lopez; Janice M Brown; Brian A McMillen; Alexander Cowell Journal: Violence Against Women Date: 2011-01
Authors: A B Coffield; M V Maciosek; J M McGinnis; J R Harris; M B Caldwell; S M Teutsch; D Atkins; J H Richland; A Haddix Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: John A Cunningham; T Cameron Wild; Joanne Cordingley; Trevor Van Mierlo; Keith Humphreys Journal: Alcohol Alcohol Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 2.826
Authors: Derek D Satre; Sujaya Parthasarathy; Kelly C Young-Wolff; Meredith C Meacham; Brian Borsari; Matthew E Hirschtritt; Lucas Van Dyke; Stacy A Sterling Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 3.346
Authors: David R Foxcroft; Lindsey Coombes; Sarah Wood; Debby Allen; Nerissa M L Almeida Santimano; Maria Teresa Moreira Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-07-18
Authors: John T P Hustad; Nadine R Mastroleo; Lan Kong; Rachel Urwin; Suzanne Zeman; Linda Lasalle; Brian Borsari Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2014-03