Citation

Cowell AJ, Brown JM, Mills MJ, Bender RH, Wedehase BJ. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2012; 73(2): 226-237.

Affiliation

RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

22333330

PMCID

PMC3281981

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of combining motivational interviewing with feedback to address heavy drinking among university freshmen. Method: Microcosting methods were used in a prospective cost and cost-effectiveness study of a randomized trial of assessment only (AO), motivational interviewing (MI), feedback only (FB), and motivational interviewing with feedback (MIFB) at a large public university in the southeastern United States. Students were recruited and screened into the study during freshman classes based on recent heavy drinking. A total of 727 students (60% female) were randomized, and 656 had sufficient data at 3-months' follow-up to be included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in average drinks per drinking occasion and number of heavy drinking occasions. Results: Mean intervention costs per student were $16.51 for MI, $17.33 for FB, and $36.03 for MIFB. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed two cost-effective interventions for both outcomes: AO ($0 per student) and MIFB ($36 per student). Conclusions: This is the first prospective cost-effectiveness study to our knowledge to examine MI for heavy drinking among students in a university setting. Despite being the most expensive intervention, MIFB was the most effective intervention and may be a cost-effective intervention, depending on a university's willingness to pay for changes in the considered outcomes. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 73, 226-237, 2012).

Language: en