title: The scope of costs in alcohol studies: Cost-of-illness studies differ from economic evaluations.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Alcohol abuse results in problems on various levels in society. In terms of health, alcohol abuse is not only an important risk factor for chronic disease, but it is also related to injuries. Social harms which can be related to drinking include interpersonal problems, work problems, violent and other crimes. The scope of societal costs related to alcohol abuse in principle should be the same for both economic evaluations and cost-of-illness studies. In general, economic evaluations report a small part of all societal costs. To determine the cost- effectiveness of an intervention it is necessary that all costs and benefits are included. The purpose of this study is to describe and quantify the difference in societal costs incorporated in economic evaluations and cost-of-illness studies on alcohol abuse.
  
  
  METHODS
  To investigate the economic costs attributable to alcohol in cost-of-illness studies we used the results of a recent systematic review (June 2009). We performed a PubMed search to identify economic evaluations on alcohol interventions. Only economic evaluations in which two or more interventions were compared from a societal perspective were included. The proportion of health care costs and the proportion of societal costs were estimated in both type of studies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The proportion of healthcare costs in cost-of-illness studies was 17% and the proportion of societal costs 83%. In economic evaluations, the proportion of healthcare costs was 57%, and the proportion of societal costs was 43%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The costs included in economic evaluations performed from a societal perspective do not correspond with those included in cost-of-illness studies. Economic evaluations on alcohol abuse underreport true societal cost of alcohol abuse. When considering implementation of alcohol abuse interventions, policy makers should take into account that economic evaluations from the societal perspective might underestimate the total effects and costs of interventions.
authors.affiliation: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Paul F
authors.initials: PF
authors.lastname: van Gils
authors.affiliation: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Public Health Forecasting, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Heleen H
authors.initials: HH
authors.lastname: Hamberg-van Reenen
authors.affiliation: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Public Health Forecasting, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Matthijs
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: van den Berg
authors.affiliation: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Luqman
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Tariq
authors.affiliation: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.|Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: G Ardine
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: de Wit