Cost effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: Findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT)

British Medical Journal

Volumn 331, Issue 7516, 2005, Pages 544-548

  Godfrey, Christine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOLISM; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MOTIVATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 24744436009     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Ludbrook A, Godfrey C, Wyness L, Parrott S, Haw S, Napper M, et al. Effective and cost-effective measures to reduce alcohol misuse in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Health Department; 2001.
2. Holder HD, Longabaugh R, Miller WR, Rubonis AV. The cost effectiveness of treatment for alcoholism: a first approximation. J Stud Alcohol 1991;52:517-40.
3. Cisler R, Holder HD, Longabaugh R, Stout RL, Zweben A. Actual and estimated replication costs for alcohol treatment modalities: case study from project MATCH. J Stud Alcohol 1998;50:503-12.
4. Holder HD, Cisler R, Longabaugh R, Stout RL, Treno AJ, Zweben A. Alcoholism treatment and medical care costs from project MATCH. Addiction 2000;95:999-1014.
5. UKATT Research Team. United Kingdom alcohol treatment trial (UKATT): hypotheses, design and methods. Alcohol Alcohol 2001;36:11-21.
6. UKATT Research Team. Effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: findings of the randomised UK alcohol treatment trial (UKATT). BMJ 2005;331:541-4.
7. Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2002.
8. Harries R. The cost of criminal justice. Home Office research findings 103. London: Home Office, 1999.
9. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
10. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004.
11. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53-72.
12. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D. Discussion paper 172. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1999.
13. Richardson G, Manca A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ 2004;13:1203-10.
14. Vickers AJ, Altman DC. Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ 2001;323:1123-4.
15. Vickers AJ. The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001;1-6.
16. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(2).
17. Raftery J. NICE-faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001;323:1300-3.
18. Potamianos G, North W, Meade T, Townsend J, Peters T. Randomised trial of community-based versus conventional hospital management in the treatment of alcoholism. Lancet 1986;ii:797-9.
19. Parthasarathy S, Weisner C, Hu T-W, Moore C. Association of outpatient alcohol and drug treatment with health care utilization and cost: revisiting the offset hypothesis. J Stud Alcohol 2001;62:89-97.