ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2026
A cost-benefit analysis of the implementation and scale-up of harm reduction interventions in the Australian Capital Territory.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2026. 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.
- A cost-benefit analysis of the implementation and scale-up of harm reduction interventions in the Australian Capital Territory.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsHarm reduction interventions aim to reduce negative consequences of drug use. We aimed to estimate the cost, health impact and economic benefits of current, expanded and new harm reduction interventions for people who use drugs in the Australian Capital Territory.
designWe conducted a cost-benefit analysis of existing and new harm reduction interventions in the Australian Capital Territory. Independent decision tree models captured health outcomes [opioid/non-opioid overdose; overdose-related deaths; injection-related skin/soft tissue/vascular infections (IRIs); hepatitis C incidence] for 2026-2030 according to intervention coverage.
settingAustralian Capital Territory, Australia. PARTICIPANTS/CASES: People who use drugs through injecting (n = 1500) or non-injecting (n = 33 600) routes differentiated by drug class (opioid/non-opioid). INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATOR: A baseline scenario (current intervention coverage maintained) was compared with a counterfactual no interventions scenario, as well as scenarios with interventions linearly scaled up to the assumed maximum proportion of the target population that could be reached given geographical, social and implementation constraints. Interventions included in the analysis were: drug consumption rooms, needle-syringe programs, take-home naloxone, opioid agonist treatment, safer opioid supply, drug checking services and technological interventions (i.e. overdose monitoring 'apps'/hotlines). MEASUREMENTS: Economic benefits were estimated from health costs averted (emergency response; shorter hospitalisation for IRI; hepatitis C treatment) and societal costs from years of life lost. Benefit-cost ratios were calculated compared to the baseline. A sensitivity analysis considered a changed illicit drug market with increased probability of overdose and overdose-related death.
findingsCompared with no coverage, the current package of harm reduction interventions was estimated to cost $24.6 million over 2026-2030 and avert 454 (24%) opioid and 20 (0.2%) non-opioid overdoses, 70 (28%) overdose-related deaths, 215 (17%) emergency responses, 552 (117%) hepatitis C infections and 199 (9%) IRIs. This corresponds to $250.1 million in economic benefits [benefit-cost ratio = 10.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 7.9-12.4]. Benefit-cost ratios for scaling up take-home naloxone [16.4 (5.0-27.9)], opioid agonist treatment [10.2 (5.6-15.3)], technological interventions [3.5 (0.0-15.7)], drug consumption room/s using medialised [1.9 (0.6-3.9)] or nurse/peer-led model [2.7 (1.2-4.4)], safer opioid supply [1.5 (0.8-2.6)] and needle-syringe programs [1.4 (0.7-2.6)] were favourable. The benefit-cost ratio for drug checking was 0.3 (0.0-6.2) but increased to 14.0 (0.1-29.6) under changed drug market conditions.
conclusionsModelled expanded and new harm reduction interventions for people who use drugs in the Australian Capital Territory appear to be likely to be cost saving from a societal perspective. If circulation of drugs with higher overdose risks was greater in this region, this would increase the impacts of interventions to prevent overdose and associated harms.
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.