Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Aims: To perform an economic evaluation of guided and unguided internet-based interventions to reduce problematic alcohol consumption in employees compared with a waiting-list control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment-as-usual.
Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a societal and a cost-benefit analysis from the employer's perspective with a 6-month time horizon.
Setting: Open recruitment in the German working population.
Participants: Employees (178 males, 256 females, mean age 47 years) consuming at least 14 (women) or 21 (men) standard units of alcohol (SUAs) per week and scoring ≥ 8 (men) or 6 (women) on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.
Measurements: On-line questionnaires administered to assess SUAs and assess quality of life (AQoL-8D) and resource use. Outcome measure was responder (≤ 14/≤ 21 SUAs) for the CEA and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the CUA. Net benefit regression was used to estimate cost-effectiveness for each study arm. Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty.
Interventions: Five weekly modules including personalized normative feedback, motivational interviewing, goal setting, problem-solving and emotion regulation, provided with adherence-focused guidance [n = 142; responders: n = 73 (51.4%); QALYs = 0.364, standard error (SE) = 0.006] or without guidance [n = 146; n = 66 (45.2%); 0.359, 0.007]. Controls were on a waiting-list [n = 144; n = 38 (26.4%); 0.342, 0.007].
Findings: From a societal perspective, the guided intervention had a probability of 55% (54%) of being the most efficient strategy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0 per responder (QALY) gained, compared with the unguided intervention and the control condition. At a WTP of €20 000 per QALY gained, the probability was 78%. From an employer's perspective, the guided intervention had a higher probability of a positive return on investment (81%) compared with the unguided intervention (58%).
Conclusion: A guided internet-based intervention to reduce problematic alcohol consumption in employees appears to be both cost-beneficial and cost-effective.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.15718 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!