Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a work-place smoking cessation intervention with and without
Floor A van den Brand1, Gera E Nagelhout1,2,3, Bjorn Winkens4
1Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University (CAPHRI), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Aims:
To perform an economic evaluation of a work-place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives.
Design:
A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employer's perspective.
Setting:
Sixty-one companies in the Netherlands.
Participants:
A total of 604 tobacco-smoking employees.
Intervention And Comparator:
A 7-week work-place smoking cessation group training programme. The intervention group earned gift vouchers of €350 for 12 months' continuous abstinence. The comparator group received no incentives.
Measurements:
Online questionnaires were administered to assess quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and resource use during the 14-month follow-up period (2-month training period plus 12-month abstinence period). For the CEA the primary outcome measure was carbon monoxide (CO)-validated continuous abstinence; for the CUA the primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) tables were used to determine cost-effectiveness from a life-time perspective.
Findings:
Of the participants in the intervention group, 41.1% had quit smoking compared with 26.4% in the control group. From a societal perspective with a 14-month follow-up period, the ICER per quitter for an intervention with financial incentives compared with no incentives was €11 546. From an employer's perspective, the ICER was €5686. There was no significant difference in QALYs between the intervention and control group within the 14-month follow-up period. The intervention was dominated by the comparator in the primary analysis at a threshold of €20 000 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, these results were uncertain. A life-time perspective showed an ICER of €1249 (95% confidence interval = €850-2387) per QALY.
Conclusions:
Financial incentives may be cost-effective in increasing quitting smoking, particularly from a life-time perspective.
More Related Videos
09:50Impact Assessment of Repeated Exposure of Organotypic 3D Bronchial and Nasal Tissue Culture Models to Whole Cigarette Smoke
Published on: February 12, 2015
07:05Operant Protocols for Assessing the Cost-benefit Analysis During Reinforced Decision Making by Rodents
Published on: September 10, 2018
Related Concept Videos
01:25Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
01:26COPD: Management Using Bronchodilators and Corticosteroids
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...