Harwood, H. J., Napolitano, D. M., Kristiansen, P. L., & Collins, J. J. (1984). Economic costs to society of alcohol and drug abuse and mental illness: 1980. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute , 1-121. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=117820
Summary
The article covers the economic impact of alcohol, drug abuse, and mental disorders. In 1977, a similar study was conducted, but the authors believe that the data sources used were inaccurate and outdated. They asserted that the new study would provide improved and comprehensive data sources to highlight the economic burden of alcohol, drug abuse, and mental illness and develop a guide for cost estimates.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This study's main argument was to enhance the cost estimates of the economic burden of alcohol, drug abuse, and mental illness. Another argument was to prove that 1977 was inadequate to inform the public on drug abuse and mental disorders' economic impact.
The authors conceptualized the primary concepts of the study using two approaches. At first, they analyzed economic analysis principles, such as opportunity cost and direct and indirect costs. They analyzed the opportunity cost by investigating the economic burden a society incurs when it dedicates its resources to prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. Direct cost included the money paid to receive medical care, while indirect cost entailed the money lost when individuals with drug abuse problems were admitted to healthcare facilities. The second principle was the direct and indirect cost of illness. The direct cost of illness included the hospital bills, while indirect costs resulted from the loss of output in the work and home environments.
The authors retrieved the data on the direct and indirect costs of alcohol, drug abuse, and mental illness from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Social Security Administration, Office of Retirement and Survivors Insurance, Research Triangle Institute, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Monthly Labor Review, and National Household Survey. They collected the direct core costs by visiting healthcare facilities and identifying the inpatient and outpatient services offered to patients with substance abuse and mental health disorders. When collecting the indirect costs, the researchers visited government facilities and requested the criminal records that resulted from the two conditions. The authors analyzed the data using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the cost of illnesses and the impact of substance abuse on the community.
The authors concluded that the study improved the way researchers estimate the economic impact of alcohol, substance abuse, and mental illness on society. They noted that economic estimates of fetal alcohol syndrome, the relationship between crime and mental illness, employee productivity, and the relationship between alcohol and crime improved the understanding of the economic impact of substance abuse and mental disorders on the community.
Assessment
This study had its limitations. One of them is the overlaps in the populations with substance abuse and mental disorders. For example, the authors did not distinguish between heavy drinkers and marijuana users. Another limitation is the failure to include personal values and behaviors when determining the substance abuse risk factors.
The authors limited their ability to answer the research questions by relying on national survey bodies. They did not interact with families to determine how mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders affected their income and methods they used to pay for the hospital bills.
Their findings would have differed if they had used state-of-the-art estimates to differentiate between labor market participation and income when investigating the economic impact of substance abuse and mental disorders. They could have also used qualitative data by interacting with patients with multiple substance abuse and mental disorders.
They would have conceptualized the primary concepts by assessing each substance abuse and mental disorder's direct and indirect costs.
This approach would have improved the findings since there would be no overlaps in the study populations and treatment costs. This method would have enabled the authors to include the relationship between substance abuse and mental disorders and other health outcomes like alcohol psychosis and liver cirrhosis.
This article's findings are similar to the articles I read this week since they imply that alcohol and substance abuse have an economic burden on society. This study ascertains that substance abuse disorders impair a person's productivity, burden a community through prevention and treatment programs, and result in criminal activities.
The authors could have included the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in determining the intents and values of the people with alcohol and substance abuse disorders. This theoretical framework would have prevented the overlaps in the study populations.
This study's conclusions are valid since the authors demonstrate the relationship between substance abuse and mental disorders, and economic impact. This research improves on the 1977 study since it highlights the limitations in the cost estimate methodologies. The authors separated the economic impact of substance abuse and mental disorders into direct and indirect costs. This approach enables a reader to understand how the two conditions affect individuals, families, and society.
