1996
DOI: 10.1016/s0005-7894(96)80032-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of behavioral marital therapy with and without relapse prevention sessions for alcoholics and their spouses

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0
1

Year Published

2002
2002
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
24
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Dozens of studies in the psychology literature have demonstrated an offset effect, as the costs of psychotherapy are more than offset by decreases in medical service utilization after psychological treatment (for a review, see Chiles et al., 1999). While few studies in marital and family therapy (MFT) have addressed treatment effects this way, most of those that have support the use of couple‐ and family‐based treatment methods (Fals‐Stewart, O’Farrell, & Birchler, 1997; Finney, Riley, & Cataldo, 1991; Graves & Hastrup, 1981; Henggeler, Melton, & Smith, 1992; Law & Crane, 2000; O’Farrell et al., 1996; Kessler, Steinwachs, & Hankin, 1982, is an exception). In the most recent of these studies, clients receiving nonmanualized couple or family treatment experienced a decrease of more than 20% in medical service utilization in the 6 months following treatment, more than twice the percentage decrease found for clients receiving individual therapy (Law & Crane, 2000).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dozens of studies in the psychology literature have demonstrated an offset effect, as the costs of psychotherapy are more than offset by decreases in medical service utilization after psychological treatment (for a review, see Chiles et al., 1999). While few studies in marital and family therapy (MFT) have addressed treatment effects this way, most of those that have support the use of couple‐ and family‐based treatment methods (Fals‐Stewart, O’Farrell, & Birchler, 1997; Finney, Riley, & Cataldo, 1991; Graves & Hastrup, 1981; Henggeler, Melton, & Smith, 1992; Law & Crane, 2000; O’Farrell et al., 1996; Kessler, Steinwachs, & Hankin, 1982, is an exception). In the most recent of these studies, clients receiving nonmanualized couple or family treatment experienced a decrease of more than 20% in medical service utilization in the 6 months following treatment, more than twice the percentage decrease found for clients receiving individual therapy (Law & Crane, 2000).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three studies (2 in alcoholism and 1 in drug abuse) have examined social cost outcomes after BCT (O'Farrell et al, 1996a(O'Farrell et al, , 1996bFals-Stewart, O'Farrell & Birchler, 1997). These social costs included costs for substance abuse-related health care, criminal justice system use for substance-related crimes, and income from illegal sources and public assistance.…”
Section: Social Cost Outcomes and Benefit-to-cost Ratiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, for every dollar spent in delivering BCT, 5 dollars in social costs are saved. In addition, BCT was more cost-effective when compared with individual treatment for drug abuse (Fals-Stewart et al, 1997) and when compared with interactional couples therapy for alcoholism (O'Farrell et al, 1996b). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, one study revealed positive outcomes for the children of couples who were involved in BCT and others showed decreases in social costs (O'Farrell et al, 1996a;O'Farrell et al, 1996b). Couple Group Therapy.…”
Section: Handbook Of Clinical Issues In Couple Therapymentioning
confidence: 99%