{"title":"为患有药物使用障碍和无家可归的年轻母亲提供住房和支持性服务:随机试验的成本效益分析。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.josat.2024.209494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Mothers experiencing homelessness and caring for young children struggle with high rates of substance use and mental health problems. A comprehensive supportive housing intervention was implemented to assist young mothers experiencing substance use disorder (SUD) and homelessness. The cost-effectiveness of this intensive intervention could inform future dissemination.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial that lasted from May 2015 to October 2018. Mothers experiencing homelessness between the ages of 18–24 years with a SUD were randomly assigned to housing+support services (HOU + SS) (<em>n</em> = 80), housing-only (HOU) (n = 80), or services as usual SAU (n = 80). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), the study compared the costs of HOU + SS and HOU to SAU for three outcomes: housing stability (percent days of stable housing), substance use (percent days of substance use), and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory score). Direct intervention costs of HOU + SS and HOU from both payor and societal perspectives were estimated. Cost data were collected from detailed study financial records. Outcomes were taken from 6-month assessments.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The average societal cost of HOU + SS per participant was $5114 [CI 95 %, $4949-5278], while the average societal cost of HOU was $3248 [CI 95 %, $ 3,140–$3341] (2019 U.S. dollars). The calculated ICERs show that HOU was more cost-effective than HOU + SS and SAU for housing outcome. For illicit drug use, HOU + SS was more cost-effective than HOU. Finally, for depressive symptoms, neither HOU + SS or HOU were more cost effective than SAU.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>While HOU is more cost-effective for increasing housing, HOU + SS is more cost-effective for reducing illicit drug use. However, housing without improvements in substance use may not be sustainable, and supportive services are likely essential for improved well-being overall beyond the housing outcome alone.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73960,"journal":{"name":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Housing and supportive services for young mothers experiencing substance use disorder and homelessness: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized trial\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.josat.2024.209494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Mothers experiencing homelessness and caring for young children struggle with high rates of substance use and mental health problems. A comprehensive supportive housing intervention was implemented to assist young mothers experiencing substance use disorder (SUD) and homelessness. The cost-effectiveness of this intensive intervention could inform future dissemination.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial that lasted from May 2015 to October 2018. Mothers experiencing homelessness between the ages of 18–24 years with a SUD were randomly assigned to housing+support services (HOU + SS) (<em>n</em> = 80), housing-only (HOU) (n = 80), or services as usual SAU (n = 80). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), the study compared the costs of HOU + SS and HOU to SAU for three outcomes: housing stability (percent days of stable housing), substance use (percent days of substance use), and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory score). Direct intervention costs of HOU + SS and HOU from both payor and societal perspectives were estimated. Cost data were collected from detailed study financial records. Outcomes were taken from 6-month assessments.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The average societal cost of HOU + SS per participant was $5114 [CI 95 %, $4949-5278], while the average societal cost of HOU was $3248 [CI 95 %, $ 3,140–$3341] (2019 U.S. dollars). The calculated ICERs show that HOU was more cost-effective than HOU + SS and SAU for housing outcome. For illicit drug use, HOU + SS was more cost-effective than HOU. Finally, for depressive symptoms, neither HOU + SS or HOU were more cost effective than SAU.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>While HOU is more cost-effective for increasing housing, HOU + SS is more cost-effective for reducing illicit drug use. However, housing without improvements in substance use may not be sustainable, and supportive services are likely essential for improved well-being overall beyond the housing outcome alone.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73960,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949875924002066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949875924002066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Housing and supportive services for young mothers experiencing substance use disorder and homelessness: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized trial
Background
Mothers experiencing homelessness and caring for young children struggle with high rates of substance use and mental health problems. A comprehensive supportive housing intervention was implemented to assist young mothers experiencing substance use disorder (SUD) and homelessness. The cost-effectiveness of this intensive intervention could inform future dissemination.
Methods
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial that lasted from May 2015 to October 2018. Mothers experiencing homelessness between the ages of 18–24 years with a SUD were randomly assigned to housing+support services (HOU + SS) (n = 80), housing-only (HOU) (n = 80), or services as usual SAU (n = 80). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), the study compared the costs of HOU + SS and HOU to SAU for three outcomes: housing stability (percent days of stable housing), substance use (percent days of substance use), and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory score). Direct intervention costs of HOU + SS and HOU from both payor and societal perspectives were estimated. Cost data were collected from detailed study financial records. Outcomes were taken from 6-month assessments.
Results
The average societal cost of HOU + SS per participant was $5114 [CI 95 %, $4949-5278], while the average societal cost of HOU was $3248 [CI 95 %, $ 3,140–$3341] (2019 U.S. dollars). The calculated ICERs show that HOU was more cost-effective than HOU + SS and SAU for housing outcome. For illicit drug use, HOU + SS was more cost-effective than HOU. Finally, for depressive symptoms, neither HOU + SS or HOU were more cost effective than SAU.
Conclusion
While HOU is more cost-effective for increasing housing, HOU + SS is more cost-effective for reducing illicit drug use. However, housing without improvements in substance use may not be sustainable, and supportive services are likely essential for improved well-being overall beyond the housing outcome alone.