Trial reportJournal of marital and family therapy2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy for Youth Probationers in Singapore: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of marital and family therapy, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This randomized controlled study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy (FFT) compared to Treatment As Usual (TAU) among 120 youth probationers in Singapore. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated to determine the cost per unit of non-recidivism, covering the period from probation inception to 3 years post probation. Overall, FFT showed higher costs (S$1183 vs. S$1070) but better non-recidivism rates (79% vs. 65%) compared to TAU. The ICER was S$807 per youth probationer (95% CI: S$230-S$1,061). For high-risk youth, FFT was both less costly and more effective (ICER: -S$2396), while for moderate-risk youth, it was more costly but more effective (ICER: S$2809). Using willingness-to-pay benchmarks published by Cohen et al., FFT was considered more cost-effective than TAU. The study concluded that FFT is a cost-effective intervention for youth probationers in Singapore.
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.