Evidence Hub

Excess costs of alcohol-dependent patients in German psychiatric care compared with matched non-alcohol-dependent individuals from the general population: a secondary analysis of two datasets

J. Dams, A. Buchholz, L. Kraus, J. Reimer, N. Scherbaum, A. Konnopka, H. König

BMJ Open, 2018

4,687 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Objectives Heavy alcohol use can cause somatic and mental diseases, affects patients’ social life and is associated with social isolation, unemployment and reduced quality of life. Therefore, societal costs of alcohol dependence are expected to be high. The aim of this study was to estimate excess costs of patients with alcohol dependence diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria compared with individuals without alcohol dependence in Germany. Design In a secondary analysis, baseline data of patients with alcohol dependence enrolled in a randomised controlled trial (German Clinical Trials Register DRS00005035) were compared with data collected via a telephone survey from individuals without alcohol dependence and that had been matched by entropy balancing. Health service use was evaluated retrospectively for a 6-month period. Settings Four German psychiatric university clinics (patients with alcohol dependence) and the German general adult population (individuals without alcohol dependence). Participants n=236 adult patients with alcohol dependence and n=4687 adult individuals without alcohol dependence. Primary and secondary outcome measures The excess costs of health service use, absenteeism and unemployment of patients with alcohol dependence were calculated and compared with individuals without alcohol dependence. In subgroup analyses, the associations between excess cost and gender, comorbidities and the duration of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,687 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free