ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Community-involved economic evaluation and development of a cost-effectiveness calculator for two peer-driven substance use interventions.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: While peer-driven substance use interventions have proliferated across the U.S., economic evaluations of these interventions have lagged behind. A key characteristic of these interventions is the centrality of the "nothing about us without us" ethos, which should extend into economic evaluation research. To that end, this study sought to take a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of peer recovery support services (PRSS) and turning that CEA and a CEA of bystander naloxone distribution (BND) into components of a free, web-based calculator for use by recovery community centers (RCCs). Methods: We engaged staff and administrators ( Results: Our RCC community partners substantively and meaningfully engaged in the co-creation of the CEA calculator and the analytic model. Calculator users have largely rated the calculator somewhat to very easy to use (58.33% and 29.17%, respectively), and rated the interpretability of results as neutral (25%), somewhat easy (45.83%) to very easy (20.83%), while finding the required information to input into the calculator was more challenging, with 8.33% rating it very difficult, 4.17% somewhat difficult, 37.5% neutral, 41.67% somewhat easy, and only 8.33% rating it very easy. There was broad agreement that calculator results would be useful for their organizations (20.83% neutral, 41.67% somewhat useful, 37.5% very useful). Discussion: RCCs face known challenges with data collection and management. This study was limited by its size (10 live participants and 24 post-launch feedback surveys). However, feedback is continuing to be collected, and a larger-scale future study is planned. Conclusion: This project demonstrates that it is feasible to take a CBPR approach to economic evaluation, and that both scholarly research and easily-interpretable tools can be created from such an approach that mutually benefits researchers and community organizations.
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.