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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Mar;73(2):226-37.
doi: 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.226.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of motivational interviewing with feedback to reduce drinking among a sample of college students

Alexander J Cowell  1 , Janice M Brown, Michael J Mills, Randall H Bender, Brendan J Wedehase
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost-effectiveness analysis of motivational interviewing with feedback to reduce drinking among a sample of college students

Alexander J Cowell et al. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of combining motivational interviewing with feedback to address heavy drinking among university freshmen.

Method: Microcosting methods were used in a prospective cost and cost-effectiveness study of a randomized trial of assessment only (AO), motivational interviewing (MI), feedback only (FB), and motivational interviewing with feedback (MIFB) at a large public university in the southeastern United States. Students were recruited and screened into the study during freshman classes based on recent heavy drinking. A total of 727 students (60% female) were randomized, and 656 had sufficient data at 3-months' follow-up to be included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in average drinks per drinking occasion and number of heavy drinking occasions.

Results: Mean intervention costs per student were $16.51 for MI, $17.33 for FB, and $36.03 for MIFB. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed two cost-effective interventions for both outcomes: AO ($0 per student) and MIFB ($36 per student).

Conclusions: This is the first prospective cost-effectiveness study to our knowledge to examine MI for heavy drinking among students in a university setting. Despite being the most expensive intervention, MIFB was the most effective intervention and may be a cost-effective intervention, depending on a university's willingness to pay for changes in the considered outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for changes in average drinks per drinking occasion. ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; AO = assessment only; MI = motivational interviewing; FB = feedback only; MIFB = motivational interviewing with feedback.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for changes in heavy drinking days. ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; AO = assessment only; MI = motivational interviewing; FB = feedback only; MIFB = motivational interviewing with feedback.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for the change in average drinks per drinking occasion with adjusted feedback input costs. ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; AO = assessment only; MI = motivational interviewing; FB = feedback only; MIFB = motivational interviewing with feedback.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Agostinelli G, Brown JM, Miller WR. Effects of normative feedback on consumption among heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education. 1995;25:31–40. - PubMed
    1. Arnett JJ. The developmental context of substance use in emerging adulthood. Journal of Drug Issues. 2005;35:235–253.
    1. Bachman JG, Wadsworth KN, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD, Schulenberg J. Smoking, drinking, and drug use in young adulthood: The impacts ofnew freedoms and new responsibilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997.
    1. Baer JS, Kivlahan DR, Blume AW, McKnight P, Marlatt GA. Brief intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91:1310–1316. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barbosa C, Godfrey C, Parrott S. Methodological assessment of economic evaluations of alcohol treatment: What is missing? Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2010;45:53–63. - PubMed

Publication types