TY - JOUR

T1 - Reducing problematic alcohol use in employees: economic evaluation of guided and unguided web-based interventions alongside a three-arm randomized controlled trial

AU - Buntrock, Claudia

AU - Freund, Johanna

AU - Smit, Filip

AU - Riper, Heleen

AU - Lehr, Dirk

AU - Boss, Leif

AU - Berking, Matthias

AU - Ebert, David Daniel

N1 - Funding Information: This was not an industry-supported study. The European Union funded this study (EU EFRE: ZW6-80119999, CCI 2007DE161PR001). The funder did not have a role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, or the decision to publish the study results. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.

PY - 2022/3/1

Y1 - 2022/3/1

N2 - AimsTo 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.DesignA 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.SettingOpen recruitment in the German working population.ParticipantsEmployees (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.MeasurementsOn-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.InterventionsFive 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].FindingsFrom 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%).ConclusionA guided internet-based intervention to reduce problematic alcohol consumption in employees appears to be both cost-beneficial and cost-effective.

AB - AimsTo 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.DesignA 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.SettingOpen recruitment in the German working population.ParticipantsEmployees (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.MeasurementsOn-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.InterventionsFive 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].FindingsFrom 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%).ConclusionA guided internet-based intervention to reduce problematic alcohol consumption in employees appears to be both cost-beneficial and cost-effective.

KW - Cost-effectiveness

KW - cost-utility

KW - economic evaluation

KW - employees

KW - internet-based intervention

KW - problematic alcohol consumption

KW - QALY

KW - Psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118485255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/93897992-292f-3d4e-9e48-d2b6bfd59229/

U2 - 10.1111/add.15718

DO - 10.1111/add.15718

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 34648235

VL - 117

SP - 611

EP - 622

JO - Addiction: The British journal of addiction to alcohol and other drugs

JF - Addiction: The British journal of addiction to alcohol and other drugs

SN - 0965-2140

IS - 3

ER -