Kathleen A Boyd1, Andrew H Briggs1, Linda Bauld2, Lesley Sinclair2, David Tappin3. 1. Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 2. Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling and UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, Stirling, UK. 3. Paediatric Epidemiology and Community Health Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of up to £400 worth of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy as an adjunct to routine health care. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a cost-utility analysis using a life-time Markov model. SETTING: The RCT was undertaken in Glasgow, Scotland. The economic analysis was undertaken from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 612 pregnant women randomized to receive usual cessation support plus or minus financial incentives of up to £400 vouchers (US $609), contingent upon smoking cessation. MEASUREMENTS: Comparison of usual support and incentive interventions in terms of cotinine-validated quitters, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct costs to the NHS. FINDINGS: The incremental cost per quitter at 34-38 weeks pregnant was £1127 ($1716).This is similar to the standard look-up value derived from Stapleton & West's published ICER tables, £1390 per quitter, by looking up the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CIPT) incremental cost (£157) and incremental 6-month quit outcome (0.14). The life-time model resulted in an incremental cost of £17 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£93, £107] and a gain of 0.04 QALYs (95% CI = -0.058, 0.145), giving an ICER of £482/QALY ($734/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates uncertainty in these results, particularly regarding relapse after birth. The expected value of perfect information was £30 million (at a willingness to pay of £30 000/QALY), so given current uncertainty, additional research is potentially worthwhile. CONCLUSION: Financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy are highly cost-effective, with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years of £482, which is well below recommended decision thresholds.
AIMS: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of up to £400 worth of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy as an adjunct to routine health care. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a cost-utility analysis using a life-time Markov model. SETTING: The RCT was undertaken in Glasgow, Scotland. The economic analysis was undertaken from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 612 pregnant women randomized to receive usual cessation support plus or minus financial incentives of up to £400 vouchers (US $609), contingent upon smoking cessation. MEASUREMENTS: Comparison of usual support and incentive interventions in terms of cotinine-validated quitters, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct costs to the NHS. FINDINGS: The incremental cost per quitter at 34-38 weeks pregnant was £1127 ($1716).This is similar to the standard look-up value derived from Stapleton & West's published ICER tables, £1390 per quitter, by looking up the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CIPT) incremental cost (£157) and incremental 6-month quit outcome (0.14). The life-time model resulted in an incremental cost of £17 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£93, £107] and a gain of 0.04 QALYs (95% CI = -0.058, 0.145), giving an ICER of £482/QALY ($734/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates uncertainty in these results, particularly regarding relapse after birth. The expected value of perfect information was £30 million (at a willingness to pay of £30 000/QALY), so given current uncertainty, additional research is potentially worthwhile. CONCLUSION: Financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy are highly cost-effective, with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years of £482, which is well below recommended decision thresholds.
Authors: Sarah M Wilson; Amie R Newins; Alyssa M Medenblik; Nathan A Kimbrel; Eric A Dedert; Terrell A Hicks; Lydia C Neal; Jean C Beckham; Patrick S Calhoun Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2018-07-27
Authors: Kristen J Polinski; Rachel Wolfe; Anne Peterson; Ashley Juhl; Marcelo Coca Perraillon; Arnold H Levinson; Tessa L Crume Journal: Public Health Nurs Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 1.462
Authors: Caitlin Notley; Sarah Gentry; Jonathan Livingstone-Banks; Linda Bauld; Rafael Perera; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-17
Authors: Marlon P Mundt; Michael C Fiore; Megan E Piper; Robert T Adsit; Kathleen H Kobinsky; Kristine M Alaniz; Timothy B Baker Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: David Tappin; Lesley Sinclair; Frank Kee; Margaret McFadden; Lyn Robinson-Smith; Alex Mitchell; Ada Keding; Judith Watson; Sinead Watson; Alison Dick; David Torgerson; Catherine Hewitt; Jennifer McKell; Pat Hoddinott; Fiona M Harris; Kathleen A Boyd; Nicola McMeekin; Michael Ussher; Linda Bauld Journal: BMJ Date: 2022-10-19
Authors: Allison N Kurti; Katherine Tang; Hypatia A Bolivar; Carolyn Evemy; Norman Medina; Joan Skelly; Tyler Nighbor; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 4.018