These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Housing and supportive services for young mothers experiencing substance use disorder and homelessness: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized trial.
    Author: Yilmazer T, Zhang J, Chavez L, Famelia R, Feng X, Ford J, Kelleher K, Slesnick N.
    Journal: J Subst Use Addict Treat; 2024 Nov; 166():209494. PubMed ID: 39153732.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Mothers experiencing homelessness and caring for young children struggle with high rates of substance use and mental health problems. A comprehensive supportive housing intervention was implemented to assist young mothers experiencing substance use disorder (SUD) and homelessness. The cost-effectiveness of this intensive intervention could inform future dissemination. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial that lasted from May 2015 to October 2018. Mothers experiencing homelessness between the ages of 18-24 years with a SUD were randomly assigned to housing+support services (HOU + SS) (n = 80), housing-only (HOU) (n = 80), or services as usual SAU (n = 80). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), the study compared the costs of HOU + SS and HOU to SAU for three outcomes: housing stability (percent days of stable housing), substance use (percent days of substance use), and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory score). Direct intervention costs of HOU + SS and HOU from both payor and societal perspectives were estimated. Cost data were collected from detailed study financial records. Outcomes were taken from 6-month assessments. RESULTS: The average societal cost of HOU + SS per participant was $5114 [CI 95 %, $4949-5278], while the average societal cost of HOU was $3248 [CI 95 %, $ 3,140-$3341] (2019 U.S. dollars). The calculated ICERs show that HOU was more cost-effective than HOU + SS and SAU for housing outcome. For illicit drug use, HOU + SS was more cost-effective than HOU. Finally, for depressive symptoms, neither HOU + SS or HOU were more cost effective than SAU. CONCLUSION: While HOU is more cost-effective for increasing housing, HOU + SS is more cost-effective for reducing illicit drug use. However, housing without improvements in substance use may not be sustainable, and supportive services are likely essential for improved well-being overall beyond the housing outcome alone.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]