BACKGROUND: In 2005, the American Journal of Public Health published an article that indicated that 22% of the overall decline in youth smoking that occurred between 1999 and 2002 was directly attributable to the truth social marketing campaign launched in 2000. A remaining key question about the truth campaign is whether the economic investment in the program can be justified by the public health outcomes; that question is examined here. METHODS: Standard methods of cost and cost-utility analysis were employed in accordance with the U.S. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine; a societal perspective was employed. RESULTS: During 2000-2002, expenditures totaled just over $324 million to develop, deliver, evaluate, and litigate the truth campaign. The base-case cost-utility analysis result indicates that the campaign was cost saving; it is estimated that the campaign recouped its costs and that just under $1.9 billion in medical costs was averted for society. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the basic determination of cost effectiveness for this campaign is robust to substantial variation in input parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the truth campaign not only markedly improved the public's health but did so in an economically efficient manner.
BACKGROUND: In 2005, the American Journal of Public Health published an article that indicated that 22% of the overall decline in youth smoking that occurred between 1999 and 2002 was directly attributable to the truth social marketing campaign launched in 2000. A remaining key question about the truth campaign is whether the economic investment in the program can be justified by the public health outcomes; that question is examined here. METHODS: Standard methods of cost and cost-utility analysis were employed in accordance with the U.S. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine; a societal perspective was employed. RESULTS: During 2000-2002, expenditures totaled just over $324 million to develop, deliver, evaluate, and litigate the truth campaign. The base-case cost-utility analysis result indicates that the campaign was cost saving; it is estimated that the campaign recouped its costs and that just under $1.9 billion in medical costs was averted for society. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the basic determination of cost effectiveness for this campaign is robust to substantial variation in input parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the truth campaign not only markedly improved the public's health but did so in an economically efficient manner.
Authors: Jennifer C Duke; Donna M Vallone; Jane A Allen; Jennifer Cullen; Paul D Mowery; Haijun Xiao; Nicole Dorrler; Eric T Asche; Cheryl Healton Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Xin Xu; Robert L Alexander; Sean A Simpson; Scott Goates; James M Nonnemaker; Kevin C Davis; Tim McAfee Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Loretta B Szczotka-Flynn; Joseph P Shovlin; Cristina M Schnider; Barbara E Caffery; Eduardo C Alfonso; Nicole A Carnt; Robin L Chalmers; Sarah Collier; Deborah S Jacobs; Charlotte E Joslin; Abby R Kroken; Carol Lakkis; Eric Pearlman; Oliver D Schein; Fiona Stapleton; Elmer Tu; Mark D P Willcox Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Amanda A Honeycutt; Olga A Khavjou; Christina Bradley; Simon Neuwahl; Thomas J Hoerger; David Bellard; Amanda J Cash Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.830