Margaret R Kuklinski1, Monica L Oxford2, Susan J Spieker3, Mary Jane Lohr4, Charles B Fleming5. 1. Social Development Research Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington, 9725 Third Ave. NE, Suite 401, Seattle, WA 98115, United States. Electronic address: mrk63@uw.edu. 2. Department of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: mloxford@uw.edu. 3. Department of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: spieker@uw.edu. 4. Department of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: mjlohr@uw.edu. 5. Center for The Study of Health and Risk Behavior, Department of Psychiatry, University of Washington, United States. Electronic address: cnbflem@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Child abuse and neglect (CAN) cost United States society $136 billion to $428 billion annually. Preventive interventions that reduce CAN may improve people's lives and generate economic benefits to society, but their magnitude is likely to vary greatly with assumptions about victim costs avoided through intervention. OBJECTIVE: We examined the implications of different assumptions about avoided victim costs in a benefit-cost analysis of Promoting First Relationships® (PFR), a 10-session attachment and strengths-based home visiting intervention. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING:Participants were 247 child protection-involved but intact families in Washington State randomized to receive PFR (n = 124) or resource and referral (n = 123). METHODS: We monetized intervention effects on out-of-home placements and implicit effects on CAN and calculated net present values under three scenarios: (1) benefits from avoided system costs, (2) additional benefits from avoided tangible victim costs, and (3) additional benefits from avoided tangible and intangible quality-of-life victim costs. For scenarios 2 and 3, we varied the CAN effect size and estimated the effect size at which PFR was reliably cost beneficial. RESULTS: PFR's societal net benefit ranged from $1 (scenario 1) to $5514 - $25,562 (scenario 2) and $7004 - $32,072 (scenario 3) (2014 USD). In scenarios 2 and 3, PFR was reliably cost beneficial at a CAN effect size of approximately -0.25. CONCLUSIONS: PFR is cost beneficial assuming tangible victim costs are avoided by PFR. Research into the long-term health and economic consequences of reducing CAN in at-risk populations would contribute to comprehensive, accurate benefits models.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Child abuse and neglect (CAN) cost United States society $136 billion to $428 billion annually. Preventive interventions that reduce CAN may improve people's lives and generate economic benefits to society, but their magnitude is likely to vary greatly with assumptions about victim costs avoided through intervention. OBJECTIVE: We examined the implications of different assumptions about avoided victim costs in a benefit-cost analysis of Promoting First Relationships® (PFR), a 10-session attachment and strengths-based home visiting intervention. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING:Participants were 247 child protection-involved but intact families in Washington State randomized to receive PFR (n = 124) or resource and referral (n = 123). METHODS: We monetized intervention effects on out-of-home placements and implicit effects on CAN and calculated net present values under three scenarios: (1) benefits from avoided system costs, (2) additional benefits from avoided tangible victim costs, and (3) additional benefits from avoided tangible and intangible quality-of-life victim costs. For scenarios 2 and 3, we varied the CAN effect size and estimated the effect size at which PFR was reliably cost beneficial. RESULTS: PFR's societal net benefit ranged from $1 (scenario 1) to $5514 - $25,562 (scenario 2) and $7004 - $32,072 (scenario 3) (2014 USD). In scenarios 2 and 3, PFR was reliably cost beneficial at a CAN effect size of approximately -0.25. CONCLUSIONS: PFR is cost beneficial assuming tangible victim costs are avoided by PFR. Research into the long-term health and economic consequences of reducing CAN in at-risk populations would contribute to comprehensive, accurate benefits models.
Authors: Allison K Farrell; Theodore E A Waters; Ethan S Young; Michelle M Englund; Elizabeth E Carlson; Glenn I Roisman; Jeffry A Simpson Journal: Attach Hum Dev Date: 2018-11-14
Authors: Monica L Oxford; Susan J Spieker; Mary Jane Lohr; Charles B Fleming; Colleen Dillon; Jennifer Rees Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2018-03
Authors: David M Rubin; Evaline A Alessandrini; Chris Feudtner; David S Mandell; A Russell Localio; Trevor Hadley Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Rosana E Norman; Munkhtsetseg Byambaa; Rumna De; Alexander Butchart; James Scott; Theo Vos Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Hannah Scheuer; Margaret R Kuklinski; Stacy A Sterling; Richard F Catalano; Arne Beck; Jordan Braciszewski; Jennifer Boggs; J David Hawkins; Amy M Loree; Constance Weisner; Susan Carey; Farah Elsiss; Erica Morse; Rahel Negusse; Andrew Jessen; Andrea Kline-Simon; Sabrina Oesterle; Charles Quesenberry; Oleg Sofrygin; Tae Yoon Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Monica L Oxford; Jonika B Hash; Mary J Lohr; Maria E Bleil; Charlie B Fleming; Jurgen Unützer; Susan J Spieker Journal: Dev Psychol Date: 2021-08
Authors: Irina Pokhilenko; Luca M M Janssen; Silvia M A A Evers; Ruben M W A Drost; Lena Schnitzler; Aggie T G Paulus Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 4.981