Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37794482›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2023

A cost benefit analysis of a virtual overdose monitoring service/mobile overdose response service: the national overdose response service.

William Rioux, Benjamin Enns, Jennifer Jackson, Hena Quereshi, Mike Irvine, S Monty Ghosh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Perceptions of overdose response hotlines and applications among rural and remote individuals who use drugs in Canada: a qualitative study.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

William RiouxDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Benjamin EnnsCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Jennifer JacksonFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Hena QuereshiDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Mike IrvineBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
S Monty GhoshDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. ghosh@ualberta.ca.
University of Alberta · CABC Centre for Disease Control · CACentre for Advancing Health Outcomes · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

CIHR 181006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe overdose crisis continues across Canada which calls for novel harm reduction strategies. Previous research indicates that a majority of eHealth solutions are cost-effective however current literature on the cost-benefit of eHealth for harm reduction is sparse. The National Overdose Response Service (NORS) is a Canada-wide telephone-based harm reduction service. Service users can call the phone number and connect to a peer who can virtually monitor the substance use session and dispatch appropriate interventions in the case of overdose. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH/PROJECT: We aim to assess the cost-benefit of NORS by comparing the estimated cost-savings from prevented overdose mortality to the operating costs of the program, alongside healthcare costs associated with its operation.

methodsData around systems costs and operational costs were gathered for our calculations. Our primary outcome was cost-benefit ratios, derived from estimates and models of mortality rates in current literature and value of life lost. We presented our main results across a range of values for costs and the probability of death following an unwitnessed overdose. These values were utilized to calculate cost-benefit ratios and value per dollar spent on service provision by NORS over the length of the program's operation (December 2020-2022).

resultsOver the total funded lifespan of the program, and using a Monte Carlo estimate, the benefit-to-cost ratio of the NORS program was 8.59 (1.53-15.28) per dollar spent, depending on estimated mortality rates following unwitnessed overdose and program operation costs. Further, we conservatively estimate that early community-based naloxone intervention results in healthcare system savings of $4470.82 per overdose response.

conclusionsWe found the NORS program to have a positive benefit-to-cost ratio when the probability of death following an unwitnessed overdose was greater than 5%. NORS and potentially other virtual overdose monitoring services have the potential to be cost-effective solutions for managing the drug poisoning crisis.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseSubstance-Related DisordersCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansNaloxoneNaloxoneCost analysisDrug poisoningEmergency servicesMobile overdose response servicesOpioidsOverdose

Identifiers

PMID37794482
PMCPMC10548617
OpenAlexW4387340089

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.