Commentary on Zur & Zaric and Shepard et al. (2016): Cost-effectiveness of SBI for alcohol--where are we and where do we want to go?
The analyses by Shepard et al. and Zur & Zaric on the cost-effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) add to a relatively limited evidence base and suggest that SBI is a good use of resources. The studies contribute to the field by considering the impacts across a nation's population, incorporating significant others in the intervention and using a preferred common health outcome, and they prompt several directions for future research, such as accounting for several domains of alcohol-related consequences and including referral to specialist treatment as part of SBI.