IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v65y2017icp139-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient and program costs, and outcomes, of including gender-sensitive services in intensive inpatient programs for substance use

Author

Listed:
  • Hornack, Sarah E.
  • Yates, Brian T.

Abstract

Gender-sensitive services (GSS) attempt to make substance use treatment better for women, but at what cost and with what results? We sought answers to these questions in a federally-funded study by measuring separately the patient and provider costs of adding GSS, outcomes, and cost-outcome relationships for 12 mixed-gender intensive inpatient programs (IIP) that varied in amounts and types of GSS. GSS costs to female inpatients included time devoted to GSS and expenses for care of dependents while in the IIP. GSS costs to providers included time spent with patients, indirect services, treatment facilities, equipment, and materials. Offering more GSS was expected to consume more patient and provider resources. Offering more GSS also was expected to enhance outcomes and cost-outcome relationships. We found that average GSS costs to patients at the IIPs were $585 ($515–$656) per patient. Average GSS costs to providers at the IIPs were $344 ($42–$544) per patient. GSS costs to patients significantly exceeded GSS costs to providers. Contrary to previous research, offering more GSS services to patients did not result in significantly higher costs to patients or providers. IIPs offering more GSS may have delivered fewer traditional services, but this did not significantly affect outcomes, i.e., days until returning to another substance use treatment. In fact, median cost-outcome for these IIPs was a promising 35 treatment-free days, i.e., over a month, per $100 of GSS resources used by patients and providers.

Suggested Citation

  • Hornack, Sarah E. & Yates, Brian T., 2017. "Patient and program costs, and outcomes, of including gender-sensitive services in intensive inpatient programs for substance use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 139-147.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:65:y:2017:i:c:p:139-147
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917300265
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vlassoff, Carol & Moreno, Claudia Garcia, 2002. "Placing gender at the centre of health programming: challenges and limitations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 1713-1723, June.
    2. Yates, Brian T., 2009. "Cost-inclusive evaluation: A banquet of approaches for including costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in your next evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 52-54, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hornack, Sarah E. & Yates, Brian T., 2023. "Costs, benefits, and net benefit of 13 inpatient substance use treatments for 14,947 women and men," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin N. Griffith & Lawrence M. Scheier, 2013. "Did We Get Our Money’s Worth? Bridging Economic and Behavioral Measures of Program Success in Adolescent Drug Prevention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-28, November.
    2. Yates, Brian T. & Marra, Mita, 2017. "Social Return On Investment (SROI): Problems, solutions … and is SROI a good investment?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 136-144.
    3. Mihic, Marko M. & Todorovic, Marija Lj. & Obradovic, Vladimir Lj., 2014. "Economic analysis of social services for the elderly in Serbia: Two sides of the same coin," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 9-21.
    4. Yates, Brian T., 2021. "Toward collaborative cost-inclusive evaluation: Adaptations and transformations for evaluators and economists," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Wen-Ying Ting & Shiang-Fen Huang & Ming-Che Lee & Yung-Yang Lin & Yu-Chin Lee & Jia-Yih Feng & Wei-Juin Su, 2014. "Gender Disparities in Latent Tuberculosis Infection in High-Risk Individuals: A Cross-Sectional Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-8, November.
    6. Anderson, Nathan, 2022. "Synthesizing frameworks and tools to develop a plan for evaluating an online data utilization curriculum for teachers," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    7. Zacharia S. Masanyiwa & Anke Niehof & Catrien J. A. M. Termeer, 2015. "A gendered users′ perspective on decentralized primary health services in rural Tanzania," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 285-306, July.
    8. Kato, Shoko, 2021. "Social performance measurement adoption in nascent social enterprises: Refining the institutional model," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 15(C).
    9. Meerambika Mahapatro, 2014. "Mainstreaming Gender: Shift from Advocacy to Policy," Vision, , vol. 18(4), pages 309-315, December.
    10. King, Julian, 2021. "Expanding theory-based evaluation: Incorporating value creation in a theory of change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:65:y:2017:i:c:p:139-147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.