Advertisement

Systematic Review of Violence Prevention Economic Evaluations, 2000–2019

  • Cora Peterson
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: Cora Peterson, PhD, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop S106-8, Atlanta GA 30341.
    Affiliations
    National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Megan C. Kearns
    Affiliations
    National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia
    Search for articles by this author
Published:February 16, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.11.002

      Context

      Health economic evaluations (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) can guide the efficient use of resources to improve health outcomes. This study aims to summarize the content and quality of interpersonal violence prevention economic evaluations.

      Evidence acquisition

      In 2020, peer-reviewed journal articles published during 2000–2019 focusing on high-income countries were identified using index terms in multiple databases. Study content, including violence type prevented (e.g., child abuse and neglect), outcome measure (e.g., abusive head trauma clinical diagnosis), intervention type (e.g., education program), study methods, and results were summarized. Studies reporting on selected key methods elements essential for study comparison and public health decision making (e.g., economic perspective, time horizon, discounting, currency year) were assessed.

      Evidence synthesis

      A total of 26 economic evaluation studies were assessed, most of which reported that assessed interventions yielded good value for money. Physical assault in the community and child abuse and neglect were the most common violence types examined. Studies applied a wide variety of cost estimates to value avoided violence. Less than two thirds of the studies reported all the key methods elements.

      Conclusions

      Comprehensive data collection on violence averted and intervention costs in experimental settings can increase opportunities to identify interventions that generate long-term value. More comprehensive estimates of the cost of violence can improve opportunities to demonstrate how prevention investment can be offset through avoided future costs. Better adherence to health economic evaluation reporting standards can enhance comparability across studies and may increase the likelihood that economic evidence is included in violence prevention decision making.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

      1. Global Health Estimates, DALYs, 2000–2016. WHO. https://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/. Accessed April 28, 2020.

      2. Violence prevention alliance: definition and typology of violence. WHO. https://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/. Updated January 2021. Accessed January 21, 2021.

        • Waters HR
        • Hyder AA
        • Rajkotia Y
        • Basu S
        • Butchart A
        The costs of interpersonal violence–an international review.
        Health Policy. 2005; 73: 303-315https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.11.022
        • Drummond MF
        • Sculpher MJ
        • Claxton K
        • Stoddart GL
        • Torrance GW
        Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes.
        4th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom2015
        • Husereau D
        • Drummond M
        • Petrou S
        • et al.
        Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
        Value Health. 2013; 16: e1-e5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.010
        • Waters H
        • Hyder A
        • Rajkotia Y
        • Basu S
        • Rehwinkel JA
        • Butchart A
        The economic dimensions of interpersonal violence.
        Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention, WHO, Geneva, SwitzerlandPublished 2004
        • Duncan KM
        • MacGillivray S
        • Renfrew MJ
        Costs and savings of parenting interventions: results of a systematic review.
        Child Care Health Dev. 2017; 43: 797-811https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12473
        • Edmunds K
        • Ling R
        • Shakeshaft A
        • Doran C
        • Searles A
        Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2018; 18: 660https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x
        • Miller TR
        • Steinbeigle R
        • Lawrence BA
        • et al.
        Lifetime cost of abusive head trauma at ages 0-4, USA.
        Prev Sci. 2018; 19: 695-704https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0815-z
        • Peterson C
        • Kearns MC
        • McIntosh WL
        • et al.
        Lifetime economic burden of intimate partner violence among U.S. adults.
        Am J Prev Med. 2018; 55: 433-444https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.049
        • Polinder S
        • Segui-Gomez M
        • Toet H
        • et al.
        Systematic review and quality assessment of economic evaluation studies of injury prevention.
        Accid Anal Prev. 2012; 45: 211-221https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.07.004
      3. World bank country and lending groups. The World Bank. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org. Accessed January 21, 2021.

        • Sanders GD
        • Neumann PJ
        • Basu A
        • et al.
        Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine [published correction appears in JAMA. 2016;316(18):1924].
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 1093-1103https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195
        • Branas CC
        • Kondo MC
        • Murphy SM
        • South EC
        • Polsky D
        • MacDonald JM
        Urban blight remediation as a cost-beneficial solution to firearm violence.
        Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 2158-2164https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303434
        • Chong VE
        • Smith R
        • Garcia A
        • et al.
        Hospital-centered violence intervention programs: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Am J Surg. 2015; 209: 597-603https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.11.003
        • Florence C
        • Shepherd J
        • Brennan I
        • Simon TR
        An economic evaluation of anonymised information sharing in a partnership between health services, police and local government for preventing violence-related injury.
        Inj Prev. 2014; 20: 108-114https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040622
        • Foster EM
        • Jones D
        Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Can a costly intervention be cost-effective?: an analysis of violence prevention.
        Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006; 63: 1284-1291https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1284
        • Ho KM
        • Geelhoed E
        • Gope M
        • Burrell M
        • Rao S
        An injury awareness education program on outcomes of juvenile justice offenders in Western Australia: an economic analysis.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; 12: 279https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-279
        • Holm AL
        • Veerman L
        • Cobiac L
        • Ekholm O
        • Diderichsen F
        Cost-effectiveness of changes in alcohol taxation in Denmark: a modelling study.
        Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014; 12: 1https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-12-1
        • Juillard C
        • Smith R
        • Anaya N
        • Garcia A
        • Kahn JG
        • Dicker RA
        Saving lives and saving money: hospital-based violence intervention is cost-effective.
        J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015; 78: 252-258https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000527
        • Klietz SJ
        • Borduin CM
        • Schaeffer CM
        Cost-benefit analysis of multisystemic therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders.
        J Fam Psychol. 2010; 24: 657-666https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020838
        • Månsdotter AM
        • Rydberg MK
        • Wallin E
        • Lindholm LA
        • Andréasson S
        A cost-effectiveness analysis of alcohol prevention targeting licensed premises.
        Eur J Public Health. 2007; 17: 618-623https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckm017
        • Navarro HJ
        • Shakeshaft A
        • Doran CM
        • Petrie DJ
        Does increasing community and liquor licensees’ awareness, police activity, and feedback reduce alcohol-related violent crime? A benefit-cost analysis.
        Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013; 10: 5490-5506https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10115490
        • Purtle J
        • Rich LJ
        • Bloom SL
        • Rich JA
        • Corbin TJ
        Cost–benefit analysis simulation of a hospital-based violence intervention program.
        Am J Prev Med. 2015; 48: 162-169https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.08.030
        • Sharp AL
        • Prosser LA
        • Walton M
        • et al.
        Cost analysis of youth violence prevention.
        Pediatrics. 2014; 133: 448-453https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-1615
        • Barlow J
        • Davis H
        • McIntosh E
        • Jarrett P
        • Mockford C
        • Stewart-Brown S
        Role of home visiting in improving parenting and health in families at risk of abuse and neglect: results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.
        Arch Dis Child. 2007; 92: 229-233https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2006.095117
        • Beaulieu E
        • Rajabali F
        • Zheng A
        • Pike I
        The lifetime costs of pediatric abusive head trauma and a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Period of Purple crying program in British Columbia, Canada.
        Child Abuse Negl. 2019; 97104133https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104133
        • Dalziel K
        • Dawe S
        • Harnett PH
        • Segal L
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Parents under Pressure programme for methadone-maintained parents.
        Child Abuse Rev. 2015; 24: 317-331https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2371
        • Dalziel K
        • Segal L
        Home visiting programmes for the prevention of child maltreatment: cost-effectiveness of 33 programmes.
        Arch Dis Child. 2012; 97: 787-798https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-300795
        • Dijkstra S
        • Creemers HE
        • van Steensel FJA
        • Deković M
        • Stams GJJM
        • Asscher JJ
        Cost-effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing in child welfare: a controlled study.
        BMC Public Health. 2018; 18: 848https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5770-5
        • Dopp AR
        • Schaeffer CM
        • Swenson CC
        • Powell JS
        Economic impact ofmultisystemic therapy for child abuse and neglect.
        Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018; 45: 876-887https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-018-0870-1
        • Friedman J
        • Reed P
        • Sharplin P
        • Kelly P
        Primary prevention of pediatric abusive head trauma: a cost audit and cost-utility analysis.
        Child Abuse Negl. 2012; 36: 760-770https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.07.008
        • McIntosh E
        • Barlow J
        • Davis H
        • Stewart-Brown S
        Economic evaluation of an intensive home visiting programme for vulnerable families: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a public health intervention.
        J Public Health (Oxf). 2009; 31: 423-433https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdp047
        • Peterson C
        • Florence C
        • Thomas R
        • Klevens J
        Cost–benefit analysis of two child abuse and neglect primary prevention programs for U.S. states.
        Prev Sci. 2018; 19: 705-715https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0819-8
        • Reynolds AJ
        • Temple JA
        • White BA
        • Ou SR
        • Robertson DL
        Age 26 cost-benefit analysis of the child-parent center early education program.
        Child Dev. 2011; 82: 379-404https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01563.x
        • Barbosa EC
        • Verhoef TI
        • Morris S
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of a domestic violence and abuse training and support programme in primary care in the real world: updated modelling based on an MRC phase IV observational pragmatic implementation study.
        BMJ Open. 2018; 8e021256https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021256
        • Chanley SA
        • Chanley JJ
        • Campbell HE
        Providing refuge: the value of domestic violence shelter services.
        Am Rev Public Adm. 2001; 31: 393-413https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740122065018
        • Devine A
        • Spencer A
        • Eldridge S
        • Norman R
        • Feder G
        Cost-effectiveness of Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS), a domestic violence training and support programme for primary care: a modelling study based on a randomised controlled trial.
        BMJ Open. 2012; 2e001008https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001008
        • Beckman L
        • Svensson M
        The cost-effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: results from a modelling study.
        J Adolesc. 2015; 45: 127-137https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.07.020
        • Persson M
        • Wennberg L
        • Beckman L
        • Salmivalli C
        • Svensson M
        The cost-effectiveness of the Kiva Antibullying Program: results from a decision-analytic model.
        Prev Sci. 2018; 19: 728-737https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0893-6
        • Ernst JS
        • Smith CA
        Assessment in adult protective services: do multidisciplinary teams make a difference?.
        J Gerontol Soc Work. 2012; 55: 21-38https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.626842
        • Bush JL
        • Bush HM
        • Coker AL
        • Brancato CJ
        • Clear ER
        • Recktenwald EA
        Total and marginal cost analysis for a high school based bystander intervention.
        J Sch Violence. 2018; 17: 152-163https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2016.1275656
        • Peterson C
        • DeGue S
        • Florence C
        • Lokey CN
        Lifetime economic burden of rape among U.S. adults.
        Am J Prev Med. 2017; 52: 691-701https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.014
        • Foster EM
        • Jones DE
        The economic analysis of prevention: an illustration involving children's behavior problems.
        J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2007; 10: 165-175
        • Greco G
        • Knight L
        • Ssekadde W
        • Namy S
        • Naker D
        • Devries K
        Economic evaluation of the Good School Toolkit: an intervention for reducing violence in primary schools in Uganda.
        BMJ Glob Health. 2018; 3e000526https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000526
        • Redfern A
        • Cluver LD
        • Casale M
        • Steinert JI
        Cost and cost-effectiveness of a parenting programme to prevent violence against adolescents in South Africa [published correction appears in BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(3):e001147corr1].
        BMJ Glob Health. 2019; 4e001147https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001147
        • Clark KA
        • Biddle AK
        • Martin SL
        A cost-benefit analysis of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
        Violence Against Women. 2002; 8: 417-428https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010222183143
        • Hajizadeh N
        • Stevens ER
        • Applegate M
        • et al.
        Potential return on investment of a family-centered early childhood intervention: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        BMC Public Health. 2017; 17: 796https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4805-7