BACKGROUND: Internet and telephone treatments for smoking cessation can reach large numbers of smokers. There is little research on their costs and the impact of adherence on costs and effects. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an economic evaluation of The iQUITT Study, a randomised trial comparing Basic Internet, Enhanced Internet and Enhanced Internet plus telephone counselling ('Phone') at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. METHODS: We used a payer perspective to evaluate the average and incremental cost per quitter of the three interventions using intention-to-treat analysis of 30-day single-point prevalence and multiple-point prevalence (MPP) abstinence rates. We also examined results based on adherence. Costs included commercial charges for each intervention. Discounting was not included given the short time horizon. RESULTS: Basic Internet had the lowest cost per quitter at all time points. In the analysis of incremental costs per additional quitter, Enhanced Internet+Phone was the most cost-effective using both single and MPP abstinence metrics. As adherence increased, the cost per quitter dropped across all arms. Costs per quitter were lowest among participants who used the 'optimal' level of each intervention, with an average cost per quitter at 3 months of US$7 for Basic Internet, US$164 for Enhanced Internet and US$346 for Enhanced Internet+Phone. CONCLUSIONS: 'Optimal' adherence to internet and combined internet and telephone interventions yields the highest number of quitters at the lowest cost. Cost-effective means of ensuring adherence to such evidence-based programmes could maximise their population-level impact on smoking prevalence.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Internet and telephone treatments for smoking cessation can reach large numbers of smokers. There is little research on their costs and the impact of adherence on costs and effects. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an economic evaluation of The iQUITT Study, a randomised trial comparing Basic Internet, Enhanced Internet and Enhanced Internet plus telephone counselling ('Phone') at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. METHODS: We used a payer perspective to evaluate the average and incremental cost per quitter of the three interventions using intention-to-treat analysis of 30-day single-point prevalence and multiple-point prevalence (MPP) abstinence rates. We also examined results based on adherence. Costs included commercial charges for each intervention. Discounting was not included given the short time horizon. RESULTS: Basic Internet had the lowest cost per quitter at all time points. In the analysis of incremental costs per additional quitter, Enhanced Internet+Phone was the most cost-effective using both single and MPP abstinence metrics. As adherence increased, the cost per quitter dropped across all arms. Costs per quitter were lowest among participants who used the 'optimal' level of each intervention, with an average cost per quitter at 3 months of US$7 for Basic Internet, US$164 for Enhanced Internet and US$346 for Enhanced Internet+Phone. CONCLUSIONS: 'Optimal' adherence to internet and combined internet and telephone interventions yields the highest number of quitters at the lowest cost. Cost-effective means of ensuring adherence to such evidence-based programmes could maximise their population-level impact on smoking prevalence.
Authors: Ricardo F Muñoz; Alinne Z Barrera; Kevin Delucchi; Carlos Penilla; Leandro D Torres; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-07-29 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: John R Hughes; Josue P Keely; Ray S Niaura; Deborah J Ossip-Klein; Robyn L Richmond; Gary E Swan Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jennifer W Kahende; Brett R Loomis; Bishwa Adhikari; Latisha Marshall Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2008-12-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Danielle E Deros; Shelby Fallon; Jennifer Stephens; Emily Kim; Tania Lobo; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Rafael Meza; Cassandra A Stanton; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Brady McKee; Judith Howell; Michael Ramsaier; Juan Batlle; Ellen Dornelas; Vicky Parikh; Eric Anderson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Dina Jankovic; Laura Bojke; David Marshall; Pedro Saramago Goncalves; Rachel Churchill; Hollie Melton; Sally Brabyn; Lina Gega Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Francisco I Salgado García; Karen J Derefinko; Zoran Bursac; Robert C Klesges; Jon O Ebbert; Catherine R Womack; Rebecca A Krukowski Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Amy M Cohn; Kang Zhao; Sarah Cha; Xi Wang; Michael S Amato; Jennifer L Pearson; George D Papandonatos; Amanda L Graham Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Brian G Danaher; Herbert H Severson; Shu-Hong Zhu; Judy A Andrews; Sharon E Cummins; Edward Lichtenstein; Gary J Tedeschi; Coleen Hudkins; Chris Widdop; Ryann Crowley; John R Seeley Journal: Internet Interv Date: 2015-05-01
Authors: Francisco I Salgado García; Karen J Derefinko; Zoran Bursac; Sarah Hand; Robert C Klesges Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Amanda L Graham; George D Papandonatos; Sarah Cha; Bahar Erar; Michael S Amato; Nathan K Cobb; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Lina Gega; Dina Jankovic; Pedro Saramago; David Marshall; Sarah Dawson; Sally Brabyn; Georgios F Nikolaidis; Hollie Melton; Rachel Churchill; Laura Bojke Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 4.014