Nhung Nghiem 1 , Christine L Cleghorn 1 , William Leung 1 , Nisha Nair 1 , Frederieke S van der Deen 1 , Tony Blakely 1 , Nick Wilson 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mass media campaigns and quitlines are both important distinct components of tobacco control programmes around the world. But when used as an integrated package, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are not well described. We therefore aimed to estimate the health gain, health equity impacts and cost-utility of the package of a national quitline service and its promotion in the mass media. METHODS: We adapted an established Markov and multistate life-table macro-simulation model. The population was all New Zealand adults in 2011. Effect sizes and intervention costs were based on past New Zealand quitline data. Health system costs were from a national data set linking individual health events to costs. RESULTS: The 1-year operation of the existing intervention package of mass media promotion and quitline service was found to be net cost saving to the health sector for all age groups, sexes and ethnic groups (saving $NZ84 million; 95%uncertainty interval 60-115 million in the base-case model). It also produced greater per capita health gains for Māori (indigenous) than non-Māori (2.2 vs 0.73 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per 1000 population, respectively). The net cost saving of the intervention was maintained in all sensitivity and scenario analyses for example at a discount rate of 6% and when the intervention effect size was quartered (given the possibility of residual confounding in our estimates of smoking cessation). Running the intervention for 20 years would generate an estimated 54 000 QALYs and $NZ1.10 billion (US$0.74 billion) in cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: The package of a quitline service and its promotion in the mass media appears to be an effective means to generate health gain, address health inequalities and save health system costs. Nevertheless, the role of this intervention needs to be compared with other tobacco control and health sector interventions, some of which may be even more cost saving. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
BACKGROUND: Mass media campaigns and quitlines are both important distinct components of tobacco control programmes around the world. But when used as an integrated package, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are not well described. We therefore aimed to estimate the health gain, health equity impacts and cost-utility of the package of a national quitline service and its promotion in the mass media. METHODS: We adapted an established Markov and multistate life-table macro-simulation model. The population was all New Zealand adults in 2011. Effect sizes and intervention costs were based on past New Zealand quitline data. Health system costs were from a national data set linking individual health events to costs. RESULTS: The 1-year operation of the existing intervention package of mass media promotion and quitline service was found to be net cost saving to the health sector for all age groups, sexes and ethnic groups (saving $NZ84 million; 95%uncertainty interval 60-115 million in the base-case model). It also produced greater per capita health gains for Māori (indigenous) than non-Māori (2.2 vs 0.73 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per 1000 population, respectively). The net cost saving of the intervention was maintained in all sensitivity and scenario analyses for example at a discount rate of 6% and when the intervention effect size was quartered (given the possibility of residual confounding in our estimates of smoking cessation). Running the intervention for 20 years would generate an estimated 54 000 QALYs and $NZ1.10 billion (US$0.74 billion) in cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: The package of a quitline service and its promotion in the mass media appears to be an effective means to generate health gain, address health inequalities and save health system costs. Nevertheless, the role of this intervention needs to be compared with other tobacco control and health sector interventions, some of which may be even more cost saving. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Entities: Species
Keywords:
Cessation; Economics; Prevention; Social marketing; Socioeconomic status
Mesh： See more »
Year: 2017
PMID： 28739609 DOI： 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053660
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tob Control ISSN： 0964-4563 Impact factor: 7.552