ArticleJournal of substance use and addiction treatment2025
The costs of peer recovery support services provided through two models within a recovery community center.
Article in Journal of substance use and addiction treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Community-involved economic evaluation and development of a cost-effectiveness calculator for two peer-driven substance use interventions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPeer recovery support services (PRSS) provided by Recovery Community Centers (RCC) address critical needs for individuals navigating the recovery process. Limited literature exists on the costs of providing these services for individuals with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). The goal of this study is to identify and cost services for two separate PRSS programs provided by a Kentucky RCC, Voices of Hope-Lexington (VOH).
methodsThe study evaluated two models: VOH RCC standard services and an expanded PRSS program, designed to promote MOUD linkage and retention as a core intervention for a federal grant. We collected 2022 financial data from the agency and administered key informant surveys to determine how VOH staff spent their time. The study entered results into a modified Substance Abuse Services Cost Analysis Program (SASCAP) to calculate program costs and estimate average labor costs per week for PRSS and administration.
resultsThe RCC standard program enrolled 721 individuals over the course of the year and incurred operating costs of $876,831. A large portion of RCC expenses ($201,671) were dedicated to community support services for daily walk-ins, such as mutual aid meetings, laundry, computer access, and community meals. Administration (46 %) also drove labor expenses. Annual per-participant costs were $2824. The Expanded PRSS program spent $2,500,613 on operations to serve 1411 individuals., Labor accounted for more than two-thirds of costs and the annual per-participant expenses were $5286. Allocations for administrative tasks comprised 20 % of expenses in the expanded PRSS program. The expanded PRSS program also invested heavily into barrier relief services, which was the second largest category for labor expenses among participant-facing services, representing a broad range of needs.
conclusionsWithin the VOH RCC, labor is the primary driver of costs for both PRSS programs. Administrative expenses were high within the standard RCC program since future funding is uncertain. Federally sponsored research funding provided expanded PRSS services for individuals with OUD and allowed for barrier relief support such as transportation and housing. These services were identified as important tools to linking and retaining individuals in treatment beyond the standard RCC provided services.
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.