Todd A Olmstead1, Steve Martino2, Steven J Ondersma3, Kathryn Gilstad-Hayden4, Ariadna Forray4, Kimberly A Yonkers5. 1. The University of Texas at Austin, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2300 Red River Street, Austin, TX, 78701, USA. Electronic address: tolmstead@austin.utexas.edu. 2. Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Substance Abuse, 950 Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT 06516, USA; VA Connecticut Healthcare System, Psychology Service, 950 Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT, 06516, USA. 3. Wayne State University, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neurosciences and Merrill-Palmer Skillman Institute, 71 East Ferry St., Detroit, MI 48202, USA. 4. Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, 40 Temple Street, New Haven, CT 06510, USA. 5. Yale University School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Division of Chronic Disease, 60 College Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA; Yale School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Sciences, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA; Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, 40 Temple Street, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) administered in reproductive health care settings on a variety of economic outcomes, including general health care utilization, criminal activity, and motor vehicle crashes. Whether and by how much SBIRT affects economic outcomes are important unanswered questions related to the economic impact of this technique. METHODS: We collected data as part of a randomized clinical trial that examined whether SBIRT delivered electronically (e-SBIRT) or by a clinician (SBIRT) is superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) for substance misuse. Participants were a convenience sample of 439 women from two reproductive health care centers who used cigarettes, risky amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs, or misused prescription medication. For each participant, we measured economic outcomes by self-report 6 months pre- and post-intervention. We used difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the impact of e-SBIRT and SBIRT, compared to EUC, on changes in each of the economic outcomes from pre- to post-intervention. RESULTS: None of the difference-in-differences estimates weas statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: In a population of women receiving routine care in reproductive health care settings, we did not find a significant effect of either e-SBIRT or SBIRT, compared to EUC, on general health care utilization, criminal activity, or motor vehicle outcomes. However, individual trials are typically underpowered to detect effects that are small but important from a public health perspective. These results may be crucial for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine the economic impact of SBIRT programs from a variety of perspectives.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) administered in reproductive health care settings on a variety of economic outcomes, including general health care utilization, criminal activity, and motor vehicle crashes. Whether and by how much SBIRT affects economic outcomes are important unanswered questions related to the economic impact of this technique. METHODS: We collected data as part of a randomized clinical trial that examined whether SBIRT delivered electronically (e-SBIRT) or by a clinician (SBIRT) is superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) for substance misuse. Participants were a convenience sample of 439 women from two reproductive health care centers who used cigarettes, risky amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs, or misused prescription medication. For each participant, we measured economic outcomes by self-report 6 months pre- and post-intervention. We used difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the impact of e-SBIRT and SBIRT, compared to EUC, on changes in each of the economic outcomes from pre- to post-intervention. RESULTS: None of the difference-in-differences estimates weas statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: In a population of women receiving routine care in reproductive health care settings, we did not find a significant effect of either e-SBIRT or SBIRT, compared to EUC, on general health care utilization, criminal activity, or motor vehicle outcomes. However, individual trials are typically underpowered to detect effects that are small but important from a public health perspective. These results may be crucial for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine the economic impact of SBIRT programs from a variety of perspectives.
Authors: Steve Martino; Samuel A Ball; Charla Nich; Tami L Frankforter; Kathleen M Carroll Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2008-03-06 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Eileen Fs Kaner; Fiona R Beyer; Colin Muirhead; Fiona Campbell; Elizabeth D Pienaar; Nicolas Bertholet; Jean B Daeppen; John B Saunders; Bernard Burnand Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-02-24
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