10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Substance Use Cost Calculator for US Employers With an Emphasis on Prescription Pain Medication Misuse

      research-article
      , PhD, , MPH, , BS
      Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          Substance use disorders are among the most common and costly health conditions affecting Americans. Despite estimates of national costs exceeding $400 billion annually, individual companies may not see how substance use impacts their bottom lines through lost productivity and absenteeism, turnover, health care expenses, disability, and workers’ compensation.

          Methods:

          Data on employed adults (18 years and older) from 3 years (2012 to 2014) of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health Public Use Data Files were analyzed.

          Results:

          The results offer employers an authoritative, free, epidemiologically grounded, and easy-to-use tool that gives specific information about how alcohol, prescription pain medication misuse, and illicit drug use is likely impacting workplaces like theirs.

          Conclusion:

          Employers have detailed reports of the cost of substance use that can be used to improve workplace policies and health benefits.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Truth or consequences: the validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions.

          This paper examines factors that influence the veracity of verbal self-report data in health services research, using a cognitive social-psychological model of the data-gathering process as an organizing framework. It begins by briefly summarizing the consequences that can result from measurement error. Next, a cognitive social-psychological model of the question-answering process is presented. Common assumptions regarding the utility of specific assessment methods are evaluated with particular emphasis on the strengths and weaknesses of alternative data sources. The framework is then applied specifically to understanding the factors that may affect self-report measures in health services research relating to alcohol and other substance use. Overall, self-report procedures can provide useful estimates of consumption in clinical settings when conditions are designed to maximize response accuracy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Contextual Factors and Cost Profiles Associated with Employee Turnover

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Talk is cheap: measuring drinking outcomes in clinical trials.

              To evaluate the correspondence among measures of self-reported drinking, standard biological indicators and the reports of collateral informants, and to identify patient characteristics associated with observed discrepancies among these three sources of research data. Using data collected from a large-scale clinical trial of treatment matching with alcoholics (N = 1,726), these three alternative outcome measures were compared at the time of admission to treatment and at 12 months after the end of treatment. Patient self-reports and collateral reports agreed most (97.1%) at treatment admission when heavy drinking was unlikely to be denied. In contrast, liver function tests were relatively insensitive, with positive serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGTP) values obtained from only 39.7% of those who admitted to heavy drinking. At 15-month follow-up the correspondence between client self-report and collateral report decreased to 84.7%, but agreement with blood chemistry values increased to 51.6%. When discrepancies occurred, they still indicated that the client' s self-report is more sensitive to the amount of drinking than the biochemical measures. Patients who presented discrepant results tended to have more severe drinking problems, more previous treatments, higher levels of pretreatment drinking and significantly greater levels of cognitive impairment, all of which could potentially interfere with accurate recall. In clinical trials using self-selected research volunteers, biochemical tests and collateral informant reports do not add sufficiently to self-report measurement accuracy to warrant their routine use. Resources devoted to collecting these alternative sources of outcome data might be better invested in interview procedures designed to increase the validity of self-report information.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Occup Environ Med
                J. Occup. Environ. Med
                JOEM
                Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                1076-2752
                1536-5948
                November 2017
                20 September 2017
                : 59
                : 11
                : 1063-1071
                Affiliations
                NORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland (Dr Goplerud, Ms Hodge); and National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois (Ms Benham).
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to: Eric Goplerud, PhD, NORC at the University of Chicago, 4350 East-West Highway, 8th Floor, Bethesda, MD 20814 ( goplerud-eric@ 123456norc.org ).
                Article
                JOEM-17-6485
                10.1097/JOM.0000000000001157
                5671784
                29116987
                b71edd20-6f24-4a56-88c6-9aa5fb8348ea
                Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Categories
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article