Cited by 284Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Primary Care Intervention to Reduce Alcohol Misuse

Solberg, Leif I., Maciosek, Michael V., Edwards, Nichol M.·2008·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse. This study was designed to develop a standardized rating for the clinically preventable burden and cost effectiveness of complying with that recommendation that would allow comparisons across many recommended services. Methods A systematic review of the literature from 1992 through 2004 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and cost-effectiveness studies was completed in 2005. Clinically preventable burden (CPB) was calculated as the product of effectiveness times the alcohol-attributable fraction of both mortality and morbidity (measured in quality-adjusted life years or QALYs), for all relevant conditions. Cost effectiveness from both the societal perspective and the health-system perspective was estimated. These analyses were completed in 2006. Results The calculated CPB was 176,000 QALYs saved over the lifetime of a birth cohort of 4,000,000, with a range in sensitivity analysis from -43% to +94% (primarily due to variation in estimates of effectiveness). Screening and brief counseling was cost-saving from the societal perspective and had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $1755/QALY saved from the health-system perspective. Sensitivity analysis indicates that from both perspectives the service is very cost effective and may be cost saving. Conclusions These results make alcohol screening and counsel…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.035

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Solberg, L. I., Maciosek, M. V., & Edwards, N. M.
Affiliations
HealthPartners (US)
Corresponding author
Solberg, Leif I.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-02
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
143-152.e3
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057082297
Cited by
284
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 29
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
alcohol abuse, alcohol screening, brief counseling, primary care, cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years, alcohol-attributable fraction, USPSTF recommendations, societal cost savings, health system perspective
MeSH terms
Alcoholism, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Counseling, Humans, Primary Health Care, United States, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review