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

This study evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of combining motivational interviewing with feedback to address heavy drinking among university freshmen. Microcosting methods were used in a prospective cost and cost-effectiveness study of a randomized trial of assessment only (AO), motivationa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs Vol. 73; no. 2; pp. 226 - 237
Main Authors: Cowell, Alexander J, Brown, Janice M, Mills, Michael J, Bender, Randall H, Wedehase, Brendan J
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Rutgers University 01-03-2012
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of combining motivational interviewing with feedback to address heavy drinking among university freshmen. 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. 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). 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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-News-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
ISSN:1937-1888
1938-4114
DOI:10.15288/jsad.2012.73.226