↓ Skip to main content

The Cost Effectiveness of Naltrexone Added to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Addictive Diseases, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
5 policy sources

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The Cost Effectiveness of Naltrexone Added to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence
Published in
Journal of Addictive Diseases, April 2009
DOI 10.1080/10550880902772456
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative cost of treating alcohol dependence with either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) alone or CBT combined with naltrexone (CBT+naltrexone). Two hundred ninety-eight outpatients dependent on alcohol who were consecutively treated for alcohol dependence participated in this study. One hundred seven (36%) patients received adjunctive pharmacotherapy (CBT+naltrexone). The Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program was used to estimate treatment costs. Adjunctive pharmacotherapy (CBT+naltrexone) introduced an additional treatment cost and was 54% more expensive than CBT alone. When treatment abstinence rates (36.1% CBT; 62.6% CBT+naltrexone) were applied to cost effectiveness ratios, CBT+naltrexone demonstrated an advantage over CBT alone. There were no differences between groups on a preference-based health measure (SF-6D). In this treatment center, to achieve 100 abstainers over a 12-week program, 280 patients require CBT compared with 160 CBT+naltrexone. The dominant choice was CBT+naltrexone based on modest economic advantages and significant efficiencies in the numbers needed to treat.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Peru 1 1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 64 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 30%
Psychology 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 8 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,847,031
of 32,332,113 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Addictive Diseases
#70
of 665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,982
of 139,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Addictive Diseases
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,332,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 139,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.