Economic analysis of methamphetamine prevention effects and employer costs

Max Guyll, Richard Spoth, D. Max Crowley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this research was to evaluate economically three interventions designed to prevent substance use in general populations of adolescents, specifically focusing on the prevention of methamphetamine use and its subsequent benefits to employers. Method: In a randomized, controlled trial, three preventive interventions were delivered to 6th- or 7th-grade youth in 58 Iowa school districts, with 905 of these youth (449 girls) providing follow-up assessments as 12th graders. Intervention conditions included the family-focused Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), the school-based Life Skills Training (LST) program, and a combined condition of both the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 (SFP10- 14; an ISFP revision) plus LST (LST + SFP10-14). Analyses based on intervention costs, 12th-grade methamphetamine use rates, and methamphetamine-related employer costs yielded estimates of intervention cost, cost-effectiveness, benefit-cost ratio, and net benefit. Results: The ISFP lowered methamphetamine use by 3.9%, cost $25, 385 to prevent each case, and had a benefit-cost ratio of 3.84, yielding a net benefit of $2,813 per youth. The LST program reduced methamphetamine use by 2.5%, required $5, 122 per prevented case, and had a benefit-cost ratio of 19.04, netting $2,273 per youth. The combined LST + SFP10-14 prevention condition lowered methamphetamine use rates by 1.8%, cost $62, 697 to prevent each case, had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.56, and netted $620 per youth. Findings were robust after varying a number of key parameters across a range of plausible values. Conclusions: Substance use prevention programming is economically feasible, particularly for effective interventions that have lower per person treatment delivery costs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)577-585
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of studies on alcohol and drugs
Volume72
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2011

Fingerprint

Methamphetamine
Economic analysis
employer
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Economics
Costs and Cost Analysis
costs
family program
economics
Costs
Education
training program
Health Care Costs
Randomized Controlled Trials
Parents
Cost effectiveness
school
parents
Research
programming

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health(social science)
  • Toxicology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{848a5d2c7c0c47b39861f00e39d0ffeb,
title = "Economic analysis of methamphetamine prevention effects and employer costs",
abstract = "Objective: The goal of this research was to evaluate economically three interventions designed to prevent substance use in general populations of adolescents, specifically focusing on the prevention of methamphetamine use and its subsequent benefits to employers. Method: In a randomized, controlled trial, three preventive interventions were delivered to 6th- or 7th-grade youth in 58 Iowa school districts, with 905 of these youth (449 girls) providing follow-up assessments as 12th graders. Intervention conditions included the family-focused Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), the school-based Life Skills Training (LST) program, and a combined condition of both the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 (SFP10- 14; an ISFP revision) plus LST (LST + SFP10-14). Analyses based on intervention costs, 12th-grade methamphetamine use rates, and methamphetamine-related employer costs yielded estimates of intervention cost, cost-effectiveness, benefit-cost ratio, and net benefit. Results: The ISFP lowered methamphetamine use by 3.9{\%}, cost $25, 385 to prevent each case, and had a benefit-cost ratio of 3.84, yielding a net benefit of $2,813 per youth. The LST program reduced methamphetamine use by 2.5{\%}, required $5, 122 per prevented case, and had a benefit-cost ratio of 19.04, netting $2,273 per youth. The combined LST + SFP10-14 prevention condition lowered methamphetamine use rates by 1.8{\%}, cost $62, 697 to prevent each case, had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.56, and netted $620 per youth. Findings were robust after varying a number of key parameters across a range of plausible values. Conclusions: Substance use prevention programming is economically feasible, particularly for effective interventions that have lower per person treatment delivery costs.",
author = "Max Guyll and Richard Spoth and {Max Crowley}, D.",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.15288/jsad.2011.72.577",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "72",
pages = "577--585",
journal = "Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs",
issn = "1937-1888",
publisher = "Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc.",
number = "4",

}

Economic analysis of methamphetamine prevention effects and employer costs. / Guyll, Max; Spoth, Richard; Max Crowley, D.

In: Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, Vol. 72, No. 4, 07.2011, p. 577-585.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic analysis of methamphetamine prevention effects and employer costs

AU - Guyll, Max

AU - Spoth, Richard

AU - Max Crowley, D.

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - Objective: The goal of this research was to evaluate economically three interventions designed to prevent substance use in general populations of adolescents, specifically focusing on the prevention of methamphetamine use and its subsequent benefits to employers. Method: In a randomized, controlled trial, three preventive interventions were delivered to 6th- or 7th-grade youth in 58 Iowa school districts, with 905 of these youth (449 girls) providing follow-up assessments as 12th graders. Intervention conditions included the family-focused Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), the school-based Life Skills Training (LST) program, and a combined condition of both the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 (SFP10- 14; an ISFP revision) plus LST (LST + SFP10-14). Analyses based on intervention costs, 12th-grade methamphetamine use rates, and methamphetamine-related employer costs yielded estimates of intervention cost, cost-effectiveness, benefit-cost ratio, and net benefit. Results: The ISFP lowered methamphetamine use by 3.9%, cost $25, 385 to prevent each case, and had a benefit-cost ratio of 3.84, yielding a net benefit of $2,813 per youth. The LST program reduced methamphetamine use by 2.5%, required $5, 122 per prevented case, and had a benefit-cost ratio of 19.04, netting $2,273 per youth. The combined LST + SFP10-14 prevention condition lowered methamphetamine use rates by 1.8%, cost $62, 697 to prevent each case, had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.56, and netted $620 per youth. Findings were robust after varying a number of key parameters across a range of plausible values. Conclusions: Substance use prevention programming is economically feasible, particularly for effective interventions that have lower per person treatment delivery costs.

AB - Objective: The goal of this research was to evaluate economically three interventions designed to prevent substance use in general populations of adolescents, specifically focusing on the prevention of methamphetamine use and its subsequent benefits to employers. Method: In a randomized, controlled trial, three preventive interventions were delivered to 6th- or 7th-grade youth in 58 Iowa school districts, with 905 of these youth (449 girls) providing follow-up assessments as 12th graders. Intervention conditions included the family-focused Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), the school-based Life Skills Training (LST) program, and a combined condition of both the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 (SFP10- 14; an ISFP revision) plus LST (LST + SFP10-14). Analyses based on intervention costs, 12th-grade methamphetamine use rates, and methamphetamine-related employer costs yielded estimates of intervention cost, cost-effectiveness, benefit-cost ratio, and net benefit. Results: The ISFP lowered methamphetamine use by 3.9%, cost $25, 385 to prevent each case, and had a benefit-cost ratio of 3.84, yielding a net benefit of $2,813 per youth. The LST program reduced methamphetamine use by 2.5%, required $5, 122 per prevented case, and had a benefit-cost ratio of 19.04, netting $2,273 per youth. The combined LST + SFP10-14 prevention condition lowered methamphetamine use rates by 1.8%, cost $62, 697 to prevent each case, had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.56, and netted $620 per youth. Findings were robust after varying a number of key parameters across a range of plausible values. Conclusions: Substance use prevention programming is economically feasible, particularly for effective interventions that have lower per person treatment delivery costs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959824355&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959824355&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.577

DO - 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.577

M3 - Article

C2 - 21683039

AN - SCOPUS:79959824355

VL - 72

SP - 577

EP - 585

JO - Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

JF - Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

SN - 1937-1888

IS - 4

ER -