Universal
family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention:
cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions.
Spoth RL, Guyll M, Day SX.
OBJECTIVE: Epidemiologic research suggests that significant public health
benefits can accrue from preventive interventions that delay the initiation of
youth alcohol use. This analysis compares the cost effectiveness of tvo
interventions designed for general population families of adolescents. It also
conservatively estimates their benefit-cost ratios and net benefits. METHOD:
Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses were performed on data from a
longitudinal prevention trial with families of sixth graders from 33 rural
schools in a midwestern state. Schools were blocked on size and proportion of
lower income families and then randomly assigned either to one of two interventions
or to a control condition. Interventions included the Iowa Strengthening
Families Program (ISFP), a seven-session intervention with parents and students
together, and Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY), a five-session
intervention focusing primarily on parents. RESULTS: Conservative estimates for
the ISFP intervention were a cost-effectiveness figure of $12,459 per case
prevented, a benefit-cost ratio of $9.60 per $1 invested, and a net benefit of
$5,923 per family. For PDFY, estimates were a cost effectiveness of $20,439 per
case prevented, a benefit-cost ratio of $5.85 per $12 invested, and a net
benefit of $2,697 per family. CONCLUSIONS: Family skills training interventions
designed for general populations have the potential to delay the onset of
alcohol use and may avoid substantial costs to society at a proportionally
small intervention cost. Economic analysis of such interventions is a largely
unexplored area that could provide valuable guidance in forming public policy.
Spoth, R., Guyll, M., &
Day, S. X. (2002). Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use
disorder prevention: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two
interventions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(2), 219-228.