E T Ronckers1, W Groot, A J H A Ament. 1. Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. S.Ronckers@BEOZ.unimaas.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to render cost-effectiveness studies on smoking cessation therapies, utilized until now, more comparable and more useful for medical decision making. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness ratios reported by the studies were recalculated using a societal perspective and guidelines for economic evaluation. RESULTS: The costs of individual interventions generally increased as a result of the standardization procedure, whereas the effect size decreased. This resulted in increases in the cost-effectiveness ratios for individual studies ranging from 120% to 5600%. CONCLUSIONS: The variation between studies in the percentage increase in cost-effectiveness ratios is huge. This means that not following guidelines when calculating cost-effectiveness ratios can result in large errors. Despite the fact that the standardized cost-effectiveness ratios of smoking interventions were higher than the unstandardized cost-effectiveness ratios, interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of smoking are cost-effective.
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to render cost-effectiveness studies on smoking cessation therapies, utilized until now, more comparable and more useful for medical decision making. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness ratios reported by the studies were recalculated using a societal perspective and guidelines for economic evaluation. RESULTS: The costs of individual interventions generally increased as a result of the standardization procedure, whereas the effect size decreased. This resulted in increases in the cost-effectiveness ratios for individual studies ranging from 120% to 5600%. CONCLUSIONS: The variation between studies in the percentage increase in cost-effectiveness ratios is huge. This means that not following guidelines when calculating cost-effectiveness ratios can result in large errors. Despite the fact that the standardized cost-effectiveness ratios of smoking interventions were higher than the unstandardized cost-effectiveness ratios, interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of smoking are cost-effective.
Authors: Thomas H Brandon; Vani N Simmons; Steven K Sutton; Marina Unrod; Paul T Harrell; Cathy D Meade; Benjamin M Craig; Ji-Hyun Lee; Lauren R Meltzer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Paul G Barnett; Abra Jeffers; Mark W Smith; Bruce K Chow; Miles McFall; Andrew J Saxon Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Amanda L Graham; Yaojen Chang; Ye Fang; Nathan K Cobb; David S Tinkelman; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 7.552