Trial reportJournal of substance use and addiction treatment2024
Housing and supportive services for young mothers experiencing substance use disorder and homelessness: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized trial.
Trial report in Journal of substance use and addiction treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMothers 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionWhile 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.