Donald S Shepard1, Marilyn C Daley2, Matthew J Neuman3, Aaron P Blaakman4, James R McKay5. 1. Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School for Social Policy & Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454-9110, United States. Electronic address: shepard@brandeis.edu. 2. Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School for Social Policy & Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454-9110, United States. 3. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Program Evaluation and Resource Center, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park Division, 795 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, United States; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Care Financing & Economics, VA Boston Health Care System, 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02130, United States. 4. Consultancy, 203 Candia Lane, Cary, NC 27519, United States. 5. University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, 3440 Market Street, Suite 370, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Crescenz VA Medical Center, 3900 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether telephone-based continuing care (TEL) is a promising alternative to traditional face-to-face counseling for clients in treatment for substance abuse. METHODS:Patients with alcohol and/or cocaine dependence who had completed a 4-week intensive outpatient program were randomly assigned through urn randomization into one of three 12-week interventions: standard continuing care (STD), in-person relapse prevention (RP), or telephone-based continuing care (TEL). This study performed cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit analyses of TEL and RP compared to STD, using results from the randomized clinical trial with two years of follow up (359 participants). In addition, the study examined the potential moderating effect of baseline patient costs on economic outcomes. RESULTS: The study found that TEL was less expensive per client from the societal perspective ($569) than STD ($870) or RP ($1684). TEL also was also significantly more effective, with an abstinence rate of 57.1% compared to 46.7% for STD (p<0.05). Thus TEL dominated STD, with a highly favorable negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$1400 per abstinent year). TEL also proved favorable under a benefit-cost perspective. CONCLUSIONS:TEL proved to be a cost-effective and cost-beneficial contributor to long-term recovery over two years. Because TEL dominated STD care interventions, wider adoption should be considered.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate whether telephone-based continuing care (TEL) is a promising alternative to traditional face-to-face counseling for clients in treatment for substance abuse. METHODS:Patients with alcohol and/or cocaine dependence who had completed a 4-week intensive outpatient program were randomly assigned through urn randomization into one of three 12-week interventions: standard continuing care (STD), in-person relapse prevention (RP), or telephone-based continuing care (TEL). This study performed cost, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit analyses of TEL and RP compared to STD, using results from the randomized clinical trial with two years of follow up (359 participants). In addition, the study examined the potential moderating effect of baseline patient costs on economic outcomes. RESULTS: The study found that TEL was less expensive per client from the societal perspective ($569) than STD ($870) or RP ($1684). TEL also was also significantly more effective, with an abstinence rate of 57.1% compared to 46.7% for STD (p<0.05). Thus TEL dominated STD, with a highly favorable negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$1400 per abstinent year). TEL also proved favorable under a benefit-cost perspective. CONCLUSIONS:TEL proved to be a cost-effective and cost-beneficial contributor to long-term recovery over two years. Because TEL dominated STD care interventions, wider adoption should be considered.
Authors: James R McKay; Deborah H A Van Horn; David W Oslin; Kevin G Lynch; Megan Ivey; Kathleen Ward; Michelle L Drapkin; Julie R Becher; Donna M Coviello Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2010-12
Authors: Kara Zivin Bambauer; Onesky Aupont; Peter H Stone; Steven E Locke; Mariquita G Mullan; Jane Colagiovanni; Thomas J McLaughlin Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Inbal Nahum-Shani; Ashkan Ertefaie; Xi Lucy Lu; Kevin G Lynch; James R McKay; David W Oslin; Daniel Almirall Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-02-18 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Christopher W Kahler; Anthony Surace; Ayla Durst; David W Pantalone; Nadine R Mastroleo; Maria Jose Miguez; Diego Bueno; Tao Liu; Peter M Monti; Kenneth H Mayer Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2019-10-18
Authors: Peter Kelly; Frank Deane; Gerard Byrne; Tayla Degan; Briony Osborne; Camilla Townsend; James McKay; Laura Robinson; Christopher Oldmeadow; Kenny Lawson; Andrew Searles; Joanne Lunn Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: James R McKay; David H Gustafson; Megan Ivey; Fiona McTavish; Klaren Pe-Romashko; Brenda Curtis; David A Oslin; Daniel Polsky; Andrew Quanbeck; Kevin G Lynch Journal: Trials Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 2.279