Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement , Thieme Verlag Heft 2-2008, Jahrgang 13) ISSN 1432-2625 Seite(n) 76 bis 82 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-963443 CareLit-Dokument-Nr: 318600 |
|
Zusammenfassung Veränderungen hinsichtlich der Zielparadigmen in der Therapie von Drogenabhängigen haben erheblichen Einfluss auf die Bewertung der Wirksamkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit derartiger Interventionen. Diese Übersicht stellt den Zusammenhang zwischen Therapiezielen und klinischen bzw. gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluationsansätzen dar. Darüber hinaus wird der Forschungsstand bzgl. der Wirksamkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit verschiedener Therapiestrategien auf der Basis von Reviews zusammengefasst. Abstract Changes regarding the goal paradigms in the therapy of drug-dependent have substantial influence on the evaluation of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of such interventions. This overview represents the connection between therapy goals and clinical and health-economic evaluation concepts. In addition, the state of research is summarized concerning the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different therapy strategies on the basis by reviews. Schlüsselwörter Therapieziele - Evaluationskonzepte - Wirksamkeit - Wirtschaftlichkeit Key words therapy goals - evaluation concepts - effectiveness - economic evaluation Literatur 1 French M, Drummond M. A research agenda for economic evaluation of substance abuse services. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2005; 29 125-137 Google Scholar 2 Godfrey C. Chronic illicit drug policy: the potential contribution of economic evaluation techniques. De Economist. 2006; 154 (4) 563-580 Google Scholar 3 Ahrens D. Technologiebewertung und Public Health. Bern; Huber 2002 Google Scholar 4 Küfner H. Therapieevaluation. Tretter F, Müller A Psychotherapie der Sucht Göttingen; Hogrefe 2001: 550-572 Google Scholar 5 Küfner H. Therapieevaluation als Evidenzbasis der Suchttherapie. Psychotherapie im Dialog. 2003; 4 (2) 170-177 Google Scholar 6 Meili D, Dober S, Eyal E. Jenseits des Abstinenzparadigmas - Ziele in der Suchttherapie. Suchttherapie. 2004; 5 2-9 Google Scholar 7 Desmond D, Maddux J. Deaths among heroin users in and out of methadone treatment. Journal Maintenance in the Addictions. 2000; 1 45-61 Google Scholar 8 Esteban J, Gimeno C, Barril J. et al . Survival study of opioid addicts in relation to its adherence to methadone maintenance treatment. Drug and Alcohol dependence. 2003; 70 193-200 Google Scholar 9 McLellan T. Have we evaluated addiction treatment correctly? Implications from chronic care perspective. Addiction. 2002; 97 249-253 Google Scholar 10 McLellan T, Lewis D, O’Brien C. et al . Drug dependence, a chronic mental illness - implications for treatment, insurance and outcome evaluation. JAMA. 2000; 284 (13) 1689-1695 Google Scholar 11 O’Brien C, McLellan T. Myths about the treatment of addiction. Lancet. 1996; 347 237-240 Google Scholar 12 Berglund M, Thelander S, Jonsson E. Treating alcohol and drug abuse - an evidence based review. Weinheim; Wiley-VCH 2003 Google Scholar 13 SBU (Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care) . Treatment of alcohol and drug abuse: an evidence based review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2002; 18 (1) 145-154 Google Scholar 14 Mattick R, Kimber J, Breen C. et al . Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane-Database Syst Rev. 2002; 4 Google Scholar 15 Barnett P, Rodgers J, Bloch D. A meta-analysis comparing buprenorphine to methadone for treatment of opiate dependence. Addiction. 2001; 96 (5) 683-690 Google Scholar 16 Connock M. et al . Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment. 2007; 11 (9) 1-190 Google Scholar 17 Ahrens D, Dehde L, Schmidt-Kaehler S. et al . Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation der Substitutionstherapie Opiatabhängiger - eine Standortbestimmung. Sucht. 2003; 49 (4) 228-238 Google Scholar 18 Andlin-Sobocki P. Economic evidence in addiction: a review. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2004; 5 S5-S12 Google Scholar 19 Cartwright W. Cost benefit analysis of drug treatment services: Review of the literature. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. 2000; 3 11-26 Google Scholar 20 Harwood H, Malhotra D, Villarivera C. et al . Cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis of substance abuse treatment: a literature review. 2002; , http//www.lewin.com/Lewin_Publications/Behavioral_Health/ SATxLitReview.htm (14.5.04) Google Scholar 21 McCollister K, French M. The relative contribution of outcome domains in the total economic benefit of addiction interventions: a review of first findings. Addiction. 2003; 98 1647-1659 Google Scholar 22 Sindelaar J, Jofre-Bonet M, French M. et al . Cost-effectiveness analysis of addiction treatment: paradoxes of multiple outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2004; 73 41-50 Google Scholar 23 Godfrey C, Stewart D, Gossop M. Economic analysis von costs and consequences of the treatment of drug 2-year outcome data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS). Addiction. 2004; 99 (6) 697-707 Google Scholar 24 Doran C, Shanahan M, Mattick R. et al . Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2003; 71 295-302 Google Scholar 25 Doran C, Mattick R, White J. et al . Buprenorphine versus methadone maintenance: a cost analysis of preliminary findings. Research and Clinical Forums. 2001; 23 (1) 43-48 Google Scholar 26 Sonntag D, Künzel J. Hat die Therapiedauer bei alkohol- und drogenabhängigen Patienten einen positiven Einfluss auf den Therapieerfolg?. Sucht. 2000; 46 (Sonderheft 2) 92-176 Google Scholar 27 Süß H M. Zur Wirksamkeit der Therapie bei Alkoholabhängigen: Ergebnisse einer Meta-Analyse. Psychologische Rundschau. 1995; 46 248-266 Google Scholar 28 Barnett P, Swindle R. Cost-effectiveness of inpatient substance abuse treatment. Health Service Research. 1997; 32 (5) 615-629 Google Scholar 29 French. et al . Benefit-cost analysis of residential and outpatient addiction treatmend in the state of washington. Evaluation Review. 2000; 24 (6) 609-634 Google Scholar 30 Weisner C. et al . The outcome and cost of alcohol and drug treatment in an HMO: day hospital versus traditional outpatient regimens. Health Serv Res. 2000; 35 (4) 791-812 Google Scholar 31 Mojtabai R, Zivin J. Effectiveness and cost-effectivesness of four treatment modalities for substance abuse disorders: a propensity score analysis. Health Service Research. 2003; 38 (1) 233-259 Google Scholar 32 Long C. et al . Treating alcohol problems: a study of programme effectiveness and cost-effectiveness according to length of delivery of treatment. Addiction. 1998; 93 (4) 561-571 Google Scholar 33 Drummond M, Pang F. Transferability of economic evaluation results. Drummond M, McGuire A Economic evaluation in health care Oxford; Oxford University Press 2001: 256-276 Google Scholar 34 Drummond M, Manca A, Sculper M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis and reporting of studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2005; 21 165-171 Google Scholar 35 Salize H J, Mohler-Kuo M, Godfrey C. et al . Health economics in addiction. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2005; 29 (7) 1288-1291 Google Scholar 36 Erbas B, Tretter F. Grundfragen der Gesundheitsökonomie. Tretter F, Erbas B, Sonntag G Ökonomie der Sucht und Suchttherapie Lengerich; Pabst 2004: 135-157 Google Scholar 37 Uhl A. Kritische Betrachtungen zur Ökonomie der Sucht. Tretter F, Erbas B, Sonntag G Ökonomie der Sucht und Suchttherapie Lengerich; Pabst 2004: 174-203 Google Scholar 38 Goodman A, Tilford J, Hankin J. et al . Alcoholism treatment offset effects: an insurance perspective. Medical Care Research an Review. 2000; 57 (1) 55-75 Google Scholar 39 Schulenburg J M, Claes C. Gesundheitsökonomische Begleitforschung. Spezialstudie im Rahmen des bundesdeutschen Modellprojekts zur kontrollierten Heroinvergabe an Schwerstabhängige. 2006; , http//www.heroinstudie.de (23.7.07) Google Scholar 40 Marckmann G, Siebert U. Prioritäten in der Gesundheitsversorgung: was können wir aus dem „Oregon Health Plan” lernen?. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2002; 127 1601-1604 Google Scholar Prof. (FH) Dr. Dieter Ahrens MPH Fachhochschulstudiengänge Burgenland GmbH, Studiengang Gesundheitsmanagement und Gesundheitsförderung Steinamanger Str. 21 7423 Pinkafeld, Österreich Email: dieter.ahrens@fh-burgenland.at
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].apa}}
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].vancouver}}
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].harvard}}