Shari P Feirman1, Elisabeth Donaldson1, Allison M Glasser2, Jennifer L Pearson1, Ray Niaura3, Shyanika W Rose2, David B Abrams3, Andrea C Villanti4. 1. The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; 2. The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; 3. The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. 4. The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Legacy, Washington, DC; Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; avillanti@legacyforhealth.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in using mathematical models to evaluate potential tobacco policies. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize data from tobacco control studies that employ mathematical models. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 to identify published studies that used a mathematical model to project a tobacco-related outcome and developed a data extraction form based on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices. We developed an organizational framework to categorize these studies and identify models employed across multiple papers. We synthesized results qualitatively, providing a descriptive synthesis of included studies. RESULTS: The 263 studies in this review were heterogeneous with regard to their methodologies and aims. We used the organizational framework to categorize each study according to its objective and map the objective to a model outcome. We identified two types of study objectives (trend and policy/intervention) and three types of model outcomes (change in tobacco use behavior, change in tobacco-related morbidity or mortality, and economic impact). Eighteen models were used across 118 studies. CONCLUSIONS: This paper extends conventional systematic review methods to characterize a body of literature on mathematical modeling in tobacco control. The findings of this synthesis can inform the development of new models and the improvement of existing models, strengthening the ability of researchers to accurately project future tobacco-related trends and evaluate potential tobacco control policies and interventions. These findings can also help decision-makers to identify and become oriented with models relevant to their work.
OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in using mathematical models to evaluate potential tobacco policies. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize data from tobacco control studies that employ mathematical models. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 to identify published studies that used a mathematical model to project a tobacco-related outcome and developed a data extraction form based on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices. We developed an organizational framework to categorize these studies and identify models employed across multiple papers. We synthesized results qualitatively, providing a descriptive synthesis of included studies. RESULTS: The 263 studies in this review were heterogeneous with regard to their methodologies and aims. We used the organizational framework to categorize each study according to its objective and map the objective to a model outcome. We identified two types of study objectives (trend and policy/intervention) and three types of model outcomes (change in tobacco use behavior, change in tobacco-related morbidity or mortality, and economic impact). Eighteen models were used across 118 studies. CONCLUSIONS: This paper extends conventional systematic review methods to characterize a body of literature on mathematical modeling in tobacco control. The findings of this synthesis can inform the development of new models and the improvement of existing models, strengthening the ability of researchers to accurately project future tobacco-related trends and evaluate potential tobacco control policies and interventions. These findings can also help decision-makers to identify and become oriented with models relevant to their work.
Authors: Andrew Hyland; Karin A Kasza; Nicolette Borek; Heather L Kimmel; Kristie A Taylor; Wilson M Compton; Hannah Day; Elisabeth A Donaldson; Eva Sharma; Gabriella Anic; Kathryn C Edwards; Michael J Halenar; Lynn C Hull; Wendy Kissin; Jean Limpert; Elizabeth L Seaman; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Lisa D Gardner; Hoda T Hammad; Cassandra A Stanton Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Jamie Tam; Jihyoun Jeon; James F Thrasher; David Hammond; Theodore R Holford; David T Levy; Rafael Meza Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2021-09-24
Authors: Jamie Tam; David T Levy; Jihyoun Jeon; John Clarke; Scott Gilkeson; Tim Hall; Eric J Feuer; Theodore R Holford; Rafael Meza Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ariuntuya Tuvdendorj; Yihui Du; Grigory Sidorenkov; Erik Buskens; Geertruida H de Bock; Talitha Feenstra Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.413
Authors: Peter N Lee; David Abrams; Annette Bachand; Gizelle Baker; Ryan Black; Oscar Camacho; Geoffrey Curtin; Smilja Djurdjevic; Andrew Hill; David Mendez; Raheema S Muhammad-Kah; Jose Luis Murillo; Raymond Niaura; Yezdi B Pithawalla; Bill Poland; Sandra Sulsky; Lai Wei; Rolf Weitkunat Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Shari P Feirman; Allison M Glasser; Lyubov Teplitskaya; David R Holtgrave; David B Abrams; Raymond S Niaura; Andrea C Villanti Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 3.295