Economic Evaluations in the CTN -- Methods & Applications
Lead investigator information unavailable.

This ancillary study is related to CTN-0004, "Motivational Enhancement Treatment to Improve Treatment Engagement and Outcome in Subjects Seeking Treatment for Substance Abuse," CTN-0005, "Motivational Interviewing to Improve Treatment Engagement and Outcome in Subjects Seeking Treatment for Substance Abuse," and CTN-0007, "Motivational Incentives for Enhanced Drug Abuse Recovery: Methadone Clinics."

It involves three cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of treatment for substance abuse. Researchers will analyze the: 1) CTN trial of Motivational Enhancement Therapy Interviewing (Dr. Carroll, Principal Investigator); 2) CTN trial of Motivational Enhancement Therapy Intervention (Dr. Carroll, Principal Investigator); and 3) the CTN trial of Motivational Incentives (Dr. Stitzer, Principal Investigator). While there are well-known guidelines for CEA in general, there are important differences in applying CEA to drug treatment. At the culmination of these analyses, there will be findings on the cost-effectiveness of new therapies that will be useful for policy decisions and to build a database of CEAs of treatment programs.

Primary Findings: In both methadone-maintenance clinics and counseling-based drug-free clinics, abstinence-based incentives provided better treatment outcomes than usual care, but required additional costs. Compared to usual care in counseling-based drug-free clinics, the incremental cost of using abstinence incentives to lengthen the longest duration of continuous stimulant and alcohol abstinence by 1 week was $258, and to obtain an additional stimulant-free urine sample was $146. Compared to usual care in methadone-maintenance clinics, the incremental cost of using abstinence-based incentives to lengthen the longest duration of an additional stimulant-free urine sample was $70. Adding abstinence-based incentives to usual care was more cost-effective in methadone-maintenance clinics than in counseling-based drug-free clinics. Empirical analyses to help policy makers decide whether abstinence-based incentives are worth the extra expense.

Primary Outcomes Papers:

Olmstead TA, et al. Clinic variation in the cost-effectiveness of contingency management. American Journal on the Addictions 2007;16(6):457-460. [more. . .]

Sindelar JL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prize-based contingency management in methadone maintenance treatment programs. Addiction 2007;102(9):1463-1471. [more. . .]

Olmstead TA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prize-based incentives for stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2007;87(2/3):175-182. [more. . .]

LATEST PUBLICATIONS AND DATA

	Find publications in the Library about Protocol CTN-0007-A-2