Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 22 - Economic Methods Used to Evaluate Recovery Programs for Alcohol Use Disorder

  • from Part III - Macro Level
  • Edited by Jalie A. Tucker, University of Florida, Katie Witkiewitz, University of New Mexico
  • Book:
    Dynamic Pathways to Recovery from Alcohol Use Disorder
    Published online:
    23 December 2021
    Print publication:
    06 January 2022, pp 400-412

  • Summary

    The economic costs associated with alcohol consumption are tremendous both in terms of negative health effects and negative societal outcomes. While there are many policies and treatment programs that can reduce these costs, determining which recovery programs are the most effective use of societal dollars is a complex task. This chapter summarizes the economic burden associated with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and explains why an economic perspective is important in understanding AUD recovery. The three most common types of analysis used to evaluate AUD interventions to promote recovery are reviewed: cost, cost-effective and benefit-cost analysis. The types of data typically used for economic analysis and when each type of analysis is appropriate are described. Also discussed are the general methods for each type of analysis, underlying modeling assumptions, and how economic analysis can be conducted from different perspectives.

  • Evaluation of a co-facilitated information and learning programme for service users: the EOLAS programme

  • A. Higgins, C. Downes, M. Monahan, D. Hevey, F. Boyd, N. Cusack, P. Gibbons
  • Journal:
    Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine / Volume 37 / Issue 2 / June 2020
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    07 August 2019, pp. 89-98
    Print publication:
    June 2020
  • Background:

    The co-production and co-facilitation of recovery-focused education programmes is one way in which service users may be meaningfully involved as partners.

    Objectives:

    To evaluate the impact of a clinician and peer co-facilitated information programme on service users’ knowledge, confidence, recovery attitudes, advocacy and hope, and to explore their experience of the programme.

    Methods:

    A sequential design was used involving a pre–post survey to assess changes in knowledge, confidence, advocacy, recovery attitudes and hope following programme participation. In addition, semi-structured interviews with programme participants were completed. Fifty-three participants completed both pre- and post-surveys and twelve individuals consented to interviews.

    Results:

    The results demonstrated statistically significant changes in service users’ knowledge about mental health issues, confidence and advocacy. These improvements were reflected in the themes which emerged from the interviews with participants (n = 12), who reported enhanced knowledge and awareness of distress and wellness, and a greater sense of hope. In addition, the peer influence helped to normalise experiences for participants, while the dual facilitation engendered equality of participation and increased the opportunity for meaningful collaboration between service users and practitioners.

    Conclusions:

    The evaluation highlights the potential strengths of a service user and clinician co-facilitated education programme that acknowledges and respects the difference between the knowledge gained through self-experience and the knowledge gained through formal learning.