Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/5575
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCiketic, Sadmiren
dc.contributor.authorHayatbakhsh, Rezaen
dc.contributor.authorMcKetin, Rebeccaen
dc.contributor.authorDoran, Christopher M.en
dc.contributor.authorNajman, Jake M.en
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-29T23:09:06Z-
dc.date.available2024-05-29T23:09:06Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.urihttps://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/5575-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction and aims: Illicit methamphetamine (MA) use is an important public health concern. There is a dearth of knowledge about effective and cost-effective treatments for methamphetamine (MA) dependence in Australia. This article evaluates the cost-effectiveness of counselling as a treatment option for illicit MA use compared with no treatment option. Design and methods: Data are from 501 individuals recruited into Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study (MATES). The population of MA users from MATES is extrapolated to a total number of 1000 MA users in the intervention group (counselling treatment) and control group (non-treatment group). A decision analytic model is developed that examines the costs and health outcomes [measures as quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained] for the treatment and comparison group over a 3-year period. A societal perspective is adopted and model inputs are subject to sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to test the robustness of results to parameter variability. Results are discounted by using 3% discount rate and expressed in 2011 Australian dollars. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that counselling is a dominant health care intervention, i.e. saves money and is more effective than a do nothing intervention. The incremental difference in costs is AU$18.36 million (95% CI AU$22.80 million to AU$14.31 million) and the incremental difference in QALY is 107 (95% CI 640 to 820) with a probability of 78.64% of counselling being a dominant and cost-effective treatment within the acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $63 832 per QALY in the Australian society. The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the ICER is most sensitive to change in five major inputs: baseline utility, utility at 3 months, dealing crime costs, property crime costs and fraud crime costs. Discussion and Conclusions: The economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of counselling for MA dependence, as a first cost-effectiveness study to assess psychosocial treatment options for MA dependence, shows that greater investment in this cost-effective strategy will produce significant cost-savings and improve health outcomes as well as improve a lot of externality issues associated with drug use.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Substance Useen
dc.subjectMethamphetamineen
dc.subjectCounselingen
dc.subjectSubstance Abuse Treatment Centersen
dc.subjectCost-Benefit Analysisen
dc.subjectAustraliaen
dc.titleCost-effectiveness of counselling as a treatment option for methamphetamine dependenceen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.3109/14659891.2014.900580-
dc.rights.holderReza Hayatbakhshen
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
Appears in Sites:North West HHS Publications
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Cost effectiveness of counselling as treatment option for methamphetamine dependance.pdfPDF Article551.23 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

24
checked on Nov 22, 2024

Download(s)

46
checked on Nov 22, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.