شنبه 1 دی 1403
[Archive]
دوره 31، شماره 149 - ( 10-1402 )
جلد 31 شماره 149 صفحات 566-557 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ahmadian-Moghadam S, Mazyaki A, Razaghi E M. A Comparison of Willingness to Pay for Substance Use Disorder Treatment in Methadone Maintenance Clinics and Residential Facilities: The Role of Cost Payers' Income and Patients' Addiction Severity. J Adv Med Biomed Res 2023; 31 (149) :557-566
URL: http://journal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-7144-fa.html
URL: http://journal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-7144-fa.html
A Comparison of Willingness to Pay for Substance Use Disorder Treatment in Methadone Maintenance Clinics and Residential Facilities: The Role of Cost Payers' Income and Patients' Addiction Severity. Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research. 1402; 31 (149) :557-566
چکیده: (1415 مشاهده)
Background and Objective: Traditional economic studies on substance use disorder treatment have generally focused on the standard evaluation of the costs and benefits of treatment programs. Meanwhile, willingness to pay (WTP) as a subjective economic indicator uncovers the intangible benefits of treatment that are not gauged by traditional measurements. This study aimed to examine the effect of cost payers’ income and substance use disorder severity on WTP for treatment.
Materials and Methods: In an applied descriptive-correlational study, the Addiction Severity Index was used for patients with substance use disorder in two treatment settings: methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and abstinence-based residential facilities (RFs). The cost payers’ WTP was measured by the contingency valuation method. The cost payers' income and the patients' addiction severity indexes were analyzed in relation to WTP in a regression model. We also used Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests to examine the differences in the two treatment settings.
Results: In MMT clinics, WTP increased with higher income and a higher substance use index, respectively. WTP decreased with the worse grades in the patients' legal and medical status. In RFs, however, changes in WTP for treatment were solely dependent on the cost payers’ income.
Conclusion: When clients and their families bear the full cost of treatment, cost payers' income plays a key role in preparedness for purchasing treatment services. The severity of substance use disorder is the second factor determining WTP for treatment.
نوع مطالعه: مقاله پژوهشی |
موضوع مقاله:
Health improvement strategies
دریافت: 1402/4/15 | پذیرش: 1402/6/26 | انتشار: 1402/11/9
دریافت: 1402/4/15 | پذیرش: 1402/6/26 | انتشار: 1402/11/9
فهرست منابع
1. French MT, Salome HJ, Carney M. Using the DATCAP and ASI to estimate the costs and benefits of residential addiction treatment in the State of Washington. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(12):2267-82. [DOI:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00060-6] [PMID]
2. French MT, Salome HJ, Sindelar JL, McLellan AT. Benefit-cost analysis of addiction treatment: Methodological guidelines and empirical application using the DATCAP and ASI. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(2):433-55. [DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.031] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. French MT, Dunlap LJ, Zarkin GA, McGeary KA, McLellan AT. A structured instrument for estimating the economic cost of drug abuse treatment: The drug abuse treatment cost analysis program (DATCAP). J Subst Abuse Treat. 1997;14(5):445-55. [DOI:10.1016/S0740-5472(97)00132-3] [PMID]
4. Salome HJ, French MT, Miller M, McLellan AT. Estimating the client costs of addiction treatment: first findings from the client drug abuse treatment cost analysis program (Client DATCAP). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003;71(2):195-206. [DOI:10.1016/S0376-8716(03)00133-9] [PMID]
5. Cartwright WS. Cost-benefit analysis of drug treatment services: review of the literature. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2000;3(1):11-26. [DOI:10.1002/1099-176X(200003)3:13.0.CO;2-0] [PMID]
6. Godfrey C, Stewart D, Gossop M. Economic analysis of costs and consequences of the treatment of drug misuse: 2-year outcome data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS). Addiction. 2004;99(6):697-707. [DOI:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00752.x] [PMID]
7. French MT, Drummond M. A research agenda for economic evaluation of substance abuse services. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005;29(2):125-37. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2005.05.009] [PMID]
8. Cartwright WS. Economic costs of drug abuse: financial, cost of illness, and services. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34(2):224-33. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.04.003] [PMID]
9. French MT. Economic evaluation of drug abuse treatment programs: Methodology and findings. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1995;21(1):111-35. [DOI:10.3109/00952999509095233] [PMID]
10. America RCo. Economic Cost of Substance Abuse in the United States, 2016. 2017.
11. Acemoglu D, Laibson D, List JA. Microeconomics. London [etc.]: Pearson Education; 2016.
12. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versuspractice: a review of willingness-to-pay? in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001;10(1):39-52. [DOI:10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:13.0.CO;2-E] [PMID]
13. Zarkin GA, Cates SC, Bala MV. Estimating the willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment: a pilot study. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000;18(2):149-59. [DOI:10.1016/S0740-5472(99)00030-6] [PMID]
14. Weimer DL, Vining AR, Thomas RK. Cost-benefit analysis involving addictive goods: contingent valuation to estimate willingness-to-pay for smoking cessation. Health Econ. 2009;18(2):181-202. [DOI:10.1002/hec.1365] [PMID]
15. Tang CH, Liu JT, Chang CW, Chang WY. Willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment: results from a contingent valuation study in Taiwan. Health Policy. 2007;82(2):251-62. [DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.09.007] [PMID]
16. Matheson C, Jaffray M, Ryan M, et al. Public opinion of drug treatment policy: exploring the public's attitudes, knowledge, experience and willingness to pay for drug treatment strategies. Int J Drug Policy. 2014;25(3):407-15. [DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.11.001] [PMID]
17. Shanahan M, Seddon J, Ritter A, De Abreu Lourenco R. Valuing families' preferences for drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Addiction. 2020;115(4):690-9. [DOI:10.1111/add.14816] [PMID]
18. Mosquera‐Nogueira J. Commentary on Shanahan et al. (2020): The importance of quantifying the intangible costs for family members of drug users. Addiction. 2020;115(4):700-1. [DOI:10.1111/add.14919] [PMID]
19. Melberg HO, Hakkarainen P, Houborg E, et al. Measuring the harm of illicit drug use on friends and family. Nord Stud Alcohol Drug. 2011;28(2):105-21. [DOI:10.2478/v10199-011-0012-5]
20. Bishai D, Sindelar J, Ricketts EP, et al. Willingness to pay for drug rehabilitation: implications for cost recovery. J Health Econ. 2008;27(4):959-72. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.11.007] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Olsen JA, Rogeberg OJ, Stavem K. What explains willingness to pay for smoking-cessation treatments - addiction level, quit-rate effectiveness or the opening bid? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(6):407-15. [DOI:10.1007/BF03261875] [PMID]
22. Khan Ahmadi F. Number of addicts has Ddoubled in five years Tehran: Iran Press; 2017. Available from: [https://www.magiran.com/article/3582313]
23. Shamsalinia A, Nourozi K, Fallahi Khoshknab M, Farhoudian A. Challenges of recovery in medium-term residential centers (camps). Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28(1):685-94.
24. Sadeghieh Ahari S, Azami A, Barak M, Amani F, Seddigh. Factors affecting the relapse among the patients referring voluntarily to addiction-abandoning centers, 2000. J Ardabil Univ Med Sci. 2004;4(2):36-41.
25. Hosseini F, Yassini M, Ahmadieh M, Vafaei_Nasab M, Kholasezadeh G, Dastjerdi G. Retention rate in methadone maintenance therapy. J Shahid Sadoughi Univ Med Sci. 2010;18(3):152-8.
26. Hajian K, Khirkhah F, Falatoni M. Epidemiology of addiction among volunteered addicts attending in detoxification centers. J Guilan Univ Med Sci. 2013;22(87):22-30.
27. Mohebi MD, Sargolzei N, Adibi A. Evaluation of retention in methadone treatment in patients attending Baharan hospital clinic in Zahedan city. Avicenna J Clin Med. 2015;22(1):30-6.
28. Vafaeinasab MR, Farahzadi MH, Razaghi OM, Fallahzadeh RA, Lotfi MH, Akhondzadeh S. Investigation of affecting factors on persistence in the treatment of patients under methadone maintenance therapy in addiction therapy centers, Yazd-Iran. Health. 2015;7(05):606. [DOI:10.4236/health.2015.75072]
29. Moghaddam SA, Mazyaki A, Razaghi EM. Public policy, attitudes and willingness to pay for treatment of substance dependence in Iran. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;74:84-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.08.005] [PMID]
30. H. M. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Drug Treatment Tehran: ISNA; 2009 [2009 Mar 06]. Available from: [https://www.isna.ir/news/8712-07618/]
31. Tavakkoli M, Sahhaf R, Ghaffari S, Farhoudian A, Hayatbakhsh R. Cost benefit analysis of detoxification in addicts over 40 in human recovery population (Congress 60). Arc Rehabil. 2012;12(0):52-7.
32. Ekhtiari H, Edalati H, Behzadi A, Safaei H, Noori M, Mokri A. Designing and evaluation of reliability and validity of five visual cue-induced craving tasks for different groups of opiate abusers. Iran J Psychiatr Clin Psychol. 2008;14(3):337-49.
33. McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, et al. The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992;9(3):199-213. [DOI:10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-S] [PMID]
34. Fadaei-Kenarsary M, Farbood Y, Taghi Mansouri SM, Fathi Moghaddam H. Effects of venlafaxine & methadone alone and in combination with spontaneous morphine withdrawal syndrome & pain sensation in rats. Basic Clin Neurosci. 2015;6(1):21-8.
35. Blake KS, Kellerson RL, Simic A. Measuring overcrowding in housing. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Policy Development. 2007.
36. Shamsalinia A, Norouzi K, Fallahi-Khoshknab M, Farhoudian A, Ghaffari F. Experiences of substance abusers from methadone maintenance therapy. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017;31(1):45. [DOI:10.14196/mjiri.31.45] [PMID] [PMCID]
37. Tran BX, Nguyen QL, Nguyen LH, et al. Expanding co-payment for methadone maintenance services in Vietnam: the importance of addressing health and socioeconomic inequalities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):1-10. [DOI:10.1186/s12913-017-2405-y] [PMID] [PMCID]
38. Organization IS. Iran Houshold Statistics, 2017 Tehran: Iran Sensus Organization; 2018 [2018 Dec]. Available from: [https://www.amar.org.ir/Portals/0/Files/fulltext/1396/n_aahvdkhsh_96.pdf]
39. Tran BX. Willingness to pay for methadone maintenance treatment in Vietnamese epicentres of injection-drug-driven HIV infection. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(7):475-82. [DOI:10.2471/BLT.12.115147] [PMID] [PMCID]
40. Jeanrenaud C, Pellegrini S. Valuing intangible costs of alcohol dependence: A contingent valuation study. Revue d'économie politique. 2007;117(5):813-25. [DOI:10.3917/redp.175.0813]
41. Moghaddam SA, Roshanpajouh M, Mazyaki A, Amiri M, Razaghi E. Subsidization of substance use treatment: Comparison of methadone maintenance treatment and abstinence-based residential treatment in Iran. Iran J Psychiatr Behav Sci. 2020;14(1). [DOI:10.5812/ijpbs.98718]
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
