Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27110675›Full record

ArticleAlcoholism, clinical and experimental research2016

The Relationship Between End-of-Treatment Alcohol Use and Subsequent Healthcare Costs: Do Heavy Drinking Days Predict Higher Healthcare Costs?

Arnie P Aldridge, Gary A Zarkin, William N Dowd, Jeremy W Bray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Substance Use Disorder Treatment Outcomes: Methodological Overview of Metrics and Criteria.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. World Health Organization (WHO) risk level reductions in inpatients with alcohol use disorder and comorbid anxiety disorders.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Arnie P AldridgeBehavioral Health Economics Program , RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Gary A ZarkinBehavioral Health Economics Program , RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
William N DowdBehavioral Health Economics Program , RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Jeremy W BrayBryan School of Business and Economics , University of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina.

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness of Alcohol TreatmentsRC4AA020096 · NIAAA · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI BOBASHEV, GEORGIY · 2010 to 2011
$1.5M
An Innovative Method to Account for Non-Adherence in Treatment EvaluationR21AA022121 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA GREENSBORO · PI VAN HASSELT, MARTIJN · 2014 to 2015
$284k
NIAAA NIH HHS R21 AA022121NIAAA NIH HHS RC4 AA020096
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA challenge for evaluating alcohol treatment efficacy is determining what constitutes a "good" outcome or meaningful improvement. Abstinence at the end of treatment is an unambiguously good outcome; however, a focus on abstinence ignores the potential benefits of patients reducing their drinking to less problematic levels. Patients may be drinking at low-risk levels at the end of treatment but may be high-functioning and impose few social costs. In this study, we estimate the relationship between drinking at the end of COMBINE treatment and subsequent healthcare costs with an emphasis on heavy and nonheavy drinking levels.

methodsIndicators of heavy drinking days (HDDs; 5+ drinks for men, 4+ for women) and nonheavy drinking days (non-HDDs) during the last 30 days of COMBINE treatment were constructed for 748 patients enrolled in the COMBINE Economic Study. Generalized linear models were used to model total costs following COMBINE treatment as a function of drinking indicators. Different model specifications analyzed alternative counts of HDDs (e.g., 1 HDD and 2 to 30 HDDs), and groups having Both non-HDDs and HDDs.

resultsPatients with HDDs had 66.4% (p < 0.01) higher healthcare costs than those who were abstinent. Having more than 2 HDDs was associated with the highest costs (75.9%, p < 0.01). Patients with non-HDDs had costs that were not significantly different than abstainers, even if they also had HDDs. However, those with HDDs only had costs 91.7% higher than abstainers (p < 0.01).

conclusionsHaving HDDs at the end of treatment is associated with higher costs. Patients who had Only HDDs at the end of treatment had worse subsequent outcomes than those who had Both non-HDDs and HDDs. These findings offer new context for evaluating treatment outcomes and provide new information on the association of drinking with consequences.

Indexed as

AdultAlcohol AbstinenceAlcohol DrinkingFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleModels, EconomicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCostsHeavy DrinkingLow RiskTreatment

Identifiers

PMID27110675
PMCPMC9536246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.