Cost of start-up activities to implement a community-level opioid overdose reduction intervention in the HEALing Communities Study

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Iván D. Montoya, Colleen Watson, Arnie Aldridge, Danielle Ryan, Sean M. Murphy, Brenda Amuchi, Kathryn E. McCollister, Bruce R. Schackman, Joshua L. Bush, Drew Speer, Kristin Harlow, Stephen Orme, Gary A. Zarkin, Mathieu Castry, Eric E. Seiber, Joshua A. Barocas, Benjamin P. Linas, Laura E. Starbird
{"title":"Cost of start-up activities to implement a community-level opioid overdose reduction intervention in the HEALing Communities Study","authors":"Iván D. Montoya, Colleen Watson, Arnie Aldridge, Danielle Ryan, Sean M. Murphy, Brenda Amuchi, Kathryn E. McCollister, Bruce R. Schackman, Joshua L. Bush, Drew Speer, Kristin Harlow, Stephen Orme, Gary A. Zarkin, Mathieu Castry, Eric E. Seiber, Joshua A. Barocas, Benjamin P. Linas, Laura E. Starbird","doi":"10.1186/s13722-024-00454-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Communities That HEAL (CTH) is a novel, data-driven community-engaged intervention designed to reduce opioid overdose deaths by increasing community engagement, adoption of an integrated set of evidence-based practices, and delivering a communications campaign across healthcare, behavioral-health, criminal-legal, and other community-based settings. The implementation of such a complex initiative requires up-front investments of time and other expenditures (i.e., start-up costs). Despite the importance of these start-up costs in investment decisions to stakeholders, they are typically excluded from cost-effectiveness analyses. The objective of this study is to report a detailed analysis of CTH start-up costs pre-intervention implementation and to describe the relevance of these data for stakeholders to determine implementation feasibility. This study is guided by the community perspective, reflecting the investments that a real-world community would need to incur to implement the CTH intervention. We adopted an activity-based costing approach, in which resources related to hiring, training, purchasing, and community dashboard creation were identified through macro- and micro-costing techniques from 34 communities with high rates of fatal opioid overdoses, across four states—Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. Resources were identified and assigned a unit cost using administrative and semi-structured-interview data. All cost estimates were reported in 2019 dollars. State-level average and median start-up cost (representing 8–10 communities per state) were $268,657 and $175,683, respectively. Hiring and training represented 40%, equipment and infrastructure costs represented 24%, and dashboard creation represented 36% of the total average start-up cost. Comparatively, hiring and training represented 49%, purchasing costs represented 18%, and dashboard creation represented 34% of the total median start-up cost. We identified three distinct CTH hiring models that affected start-up costs: hospital-academic (Massachusetts), university-academic (Kentucky and Ohio), and community-leveraged (New York). Hiring, training, and purchasing start-up costs were lowest in New York due to existing local infrastructure. Community-based implementation similar to the New York model may have lower start-up costs due to leveraging of existing infrastructure, relationships, and support from local health departments.","PeriodicalId":54223,"journal":{"name":"Addiction Science & Clinical Practice","volume":"95 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction Science & Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-024-00454-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Communities That HEAL (CTH) is a novel, data-driven community-engaged intervention designed to reduce opioid overdose deaths by increasing community engagement, adoption of an integrated set of evidence-based practices, and delivering a communications campaign across healthcare, behavioral-health, criminal-legal, and other community-based settings. The implementation of such a complex initiative requires up-front investments of time and other expenditures (i.e., start-up costs). Despite the importance of these start-up costs in investment decisions to stakeholders, they are typically excluded from cost-effectiveness analyses. The objective of this study is to report a detailed analysis of CTH start-up costs pre-intervention implementation and to describe the relevance of these data for stakeholders to determine implementation feasibility. This study is guided by the community perspective, reflecting the investments that a real-world community would need to incur to implement the CTH intervention. We adopted an activity-based costing approach, in which resources related to hiring, training, purchasing, and community dashboard creation were identified through macro- and micro-costing techniques from 34 communities with high rates of fatal opioid overdoses, across four states—Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. Resources were identified and assigned a unit cost using administrative and semi-structured-interview data. All cost estimates were reported in 2019 dollars. State-level average and median start-up cost (representing 8–10 communities per state) were $268,657 and $175,683, respectively. Hiring and training represented 40%, equipment and infrastructure costs represented 24%, and dashboard creation represented 36% of the total average start-up cost. Comparatively, hiring and training represented 49%, purchasing costs represented 18%, and dashboard creation represented 34% of the total median start-up cost. We identified three distinct CTH hiring models that affected start-up costs: hospital-academic (Massachusetts), university-academic (Kentucky and Ohio), and community-leveraged (New York). Hiring, training, and purchasing start-up costs were lowest in New York due to existing local infrastructure. Community-based implementation similar to the New York model may have lower start-up costs due to leveraging of existing infrastructure, relationships, and support from local health departments.
在 HEALing 社区研究中实施社区一级减少阿片类药物过量干预措施的启动活动成本
社区健康(Communities That HEAL,CTH)是一项以数据为驱动的新型社区参与干预措施,旨在通过提高社区参与度、采用一整套循证实践以及在医疗保健、行为健康、刑事法律和其他社区环境中开展宣传活动来减少阿片类药物过量死亡。实施这样一项复杂的举措需要前期投入时间和其他支出(即启动成本)。尽管这些启动成本在利益相关者的投资决策中非常重要,但它们通常被排除在成本效益分析之外。本研究的目的是详细分析干预措施实施前的普通话启动成本,并说明这些数据与利益相关者确定实施可行性的相关性。本研究以社区视角为指导,反映了现实世界中社区为实施社区保健干预所需的投资。我们采用了基于活动的成本计算方法,通过宏观和微观成本计算技术,从肯塔基州、马萨诸塞州、纽约州和俄亥俄州四个州的 34 个阿片类药物过量致死率较高的社区中确定了与招聘、培训、采购和社区仪表板创建相关的资源。利用行政和半结构化访谈数据确定了资源并分配了单位成本。所有成本估算均以 2019 美元为单位。州级平均启动成本和中位数(代表每个州 8-10 个社区)分别为 268 657 美元和 175 683 美元。在平均启动成本总额中,招聘和培训占 40%,设备和基础设施成本占 24%,仪表板创建占 36%。相比之下,在启动成本中位数总额中,招聘和培训占 49%,采购成本占 18%,仪表板创建占 34%。我们确定了影响启动成本的三种不同的社区保健中心聘用模式:医院-学术(马萨诸塞州)、大学-学术(肯塔基州和俄亥俄州)和社区-杠杆(纽约州)。由于当地已有的基础设施,纽约的招聘、培训和采购启动成本最低。与纽约模式类似的社区实施模式,由于利用了现有的基础设施、关系和当地卫生部门的支持,启动成本可能较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.80%
发文量
64
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Addiction Science & Clinical Practice provides a forum for clinically relevant research and perspectives that contribute to improving the quality of care for people with unhealthy alcohol, tobacco, or other drug use and addictive behaviours across a spectrum of clinical settings. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice accepts articles of clinical relevance related to the prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use across the spectrum of clinical settings. Topics of interest address issues related to the following: the spectrum of unhealthy use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs among the range of affected persons (e.g., not limited by age, race/ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation); the array of clinical prevention and treatment practices (from health messages, to identification and early intervention, to more extensive interventions including counseling and pharmacotherapy and other management strategies); and identification and management of medical, psychiatric, social, and other health consequences of substance use. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice is particularly interested in articles that address how to improve the quality of care for people with unhealthy substance use and related conditions as described in the (US) Institute of Medicine report, Improving the Quality of Healthcare for Mental Health and Substance Use Conditions (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006). Such articles address the quality of care and of health services. Although the journal also welcomes submissions that address these conditions in addiction speciality-treatment settings, the journal is particularly interested in including articles that address unhealthy use outside these settings, including experience with novel models of care and outcomes, and outcomes of research-practice collaborations. Although Addiction Science & Clinical Practice is generally not an outlet for basic science research, we will accept basic science research manuscripts that have clearly described potential clinical relevance and are accessible to audiences outside a narrow laboratory research field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信