Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28149834›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2016

Methodological Considerations in Social Cost Studies of Addictive Substances: A Systematic Literature Review.

Nick Verhaeghe, Delfine Lievens, Lieven Annemans, Freya Vander Laenen, Koen Putman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nick VerhaegheDepartment of Public Health, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Public Health, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Delfine LievensInstitute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Ghent University , Ghent , Belgium.
Lieven AnnemansDepartment of Public Health, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University , Ghent , Belgium.
Freya Vander LaenenInstitute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Ghent University , Ghent , Belgium.
Koen PutmanDepartment of Public Health, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Vrije Universiteit Brussel , Brussels , Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and psychoactive pharmaceuticals' use is associated with a higher likelihood of developing several diseases and injuries and, as a consequence, considerable health-care expenditures. There is yet a lack of consistent methodologies to estimate the economic impact of addictive substances to society. The aim was to assess the methodological approaches applied in social cost studies estimating the economic impact of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and psychoactive pharmaceuticals.

methodsA systematic literature review through the electronic databases, Medline (PubMed) and Web of Science, was performed. Studies in English published from 1997 examining the social costs of the addictive substances alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and psychoactive pharmaceuticals were eligible for inclusion.

resultsTwelve social cost studies met the inclusion criteria. In all studies, the direct and indirect costs were measured, but the intangible costs were seldom taken into account. A wide variety in cost items included across studies was observed. Sensitivity analyses to address the uncertainty around certain cost estimates were conducted in eight studies considered in the review.

conclusionDifferences in cost items included in cost-of-illness studies limit the comparison across studies. It is clear that it is difficult to deal with all consequences of substance use in cost-of-illness studies. Future social cost studies should be based on sound methodological principles in order to result in more reliable cost estimates of the economic burden of substance use.

Indexed as

alcoholcost-of-illnessillicit drugsmethodologypsychoactive pharmaceuticalsreviewtobacco

Identifiers

PMID28149834
PMCPMC5241275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.