Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2010 Nov;29(6):623-30.
doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00238.x.

Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy

Alexander J Cowell  1 , Jeremy W Bray, Michael J Mills, Jesse M Hinde
Affiliations
Review

Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy

Alexander J Cowell et al. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

Issues: Many policy review articles have concluded that alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is both cost-effective and cost-beneficial. Yet a recent cost-effectiveness review for the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence suggests that these conclusions may be premature.

Approach: This article offers a brief synopsis of the various types of economic analyses that may be applied to SBI, including cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis and other types of economic evaluation. A brief overview of methodological issues is provided, and examples from the SBI evaluation literature are provided.

Key findings, implications and conclusions: The current evidence base is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the cost, cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of SBI and about the impact of SBI on health-care utilisation.[Cowell AJ, Bray JW, Mills MJ, Hinde JM. Conducting economic evaluations of screening and brief intervention for hazardous drinking: Methods and evidence to date for informing policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Connections between cost, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit analysis
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Wallace P, Cutler S, Haines A. Randomised controlled trial of general practitioner intervention in patients with excessive alcohol consumption. BMJ. 1988;297:663–668. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bien TH, Miller WR, Tonigan JS. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a review. Addiction. 1993;88:315–336. - PubMed
    1. Moyer A, Finney JW, Swearingen CE, Vergun P. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta-analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking populations. Addiction. 2002;97:279–292. - PubMed
    1. Wilk AI, Jensen NM, Havinghurst TC. Meta-analysis of randomized control trials addressing brief interventions in heavy alcohol drinkers. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:274–283. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fleming MF, Barry KL, Manwell LB, Johnson K, London R. Brief physician advice for problem alcohol drinkers. JAMA. 1997;277:1039–1045. - PubMed

Publication types