Donghoon Lee1, Ye-Rin Lee2, In-Hwan Oh3. 1. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. parenchyme@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the characteristics of published cost-effectiveness analyses of inpatient smoking cessation programs and assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies, to provide policymakers with economic evidence for this type of program. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken using a relevant database by three investigators. Only full economic evaluations with results in the form of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were included. Costs were adjusted to 2016 US dollars using the Gross Domestic Product deflator and purchasing power parities. The British Medical Journal checklist was utilized to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Nine articles were ultimately selected. The inpatient smoking cessation programs appeared to be a highly cost-effective intervention according to the recommended cost-effectiveness thresholds by the World Health Organization or individual studies. The highest ICERs among the selected studies were $5593 per additional quit, $10,550 per life year gained, and $5680 per quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides robust evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation programs for hospitalized patients. In addition, the results indicated that the degree of cost-effectiveness of the inpatient smoking cessation program might not be related to either the components of the program or methodological variations in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Policymakers should provide hospitals with resources and strong incentives to promote wider implementation of the smoking cessation program.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the characteristics of published cost-effectiveness analyses of inpatient smoking cessation programs and assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies, to provide policymakers with economic evidence for this type of program. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken using a relevant database by three investigators. Only full economic evaluations with results in the form of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were included. Costs were adjusted to 2016 US dollars using the Gross Domestic Product deflator and purchasing power parities. The British Medical Journal checklist was utilized to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Nine articles were ultimately selected. The inpatient smoking cessation programs appeared to be a highly cost-effective intervention according to the recommended cost-effectiveness thresholds by the World Health Organization or individual studies. The highest ICERs among the selected studies were $5593 per additional quit, $10,550 per life year gained, and $5680 per quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides robust evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation programs for hospitalized patients. In addition, the results indicated that the degree of cost-effectiveness of the inpatient smoking cessation program might not be related to either the components of the program or methodological variations in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Policymakers should provide hospitals with resources and strong incentives to promote wider implementation of the smoking cessation program.
Authors: Chiun-Fang Chiou; Joel W Hay; Joel F Wallace; Bernard S Bloom; Peter J Neumann; Sean D Sullivan; Hsing-Ting Yu; Emmett B Keeler; James M Henning; Joshua J Ofman Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Kerri-Anne Mullen; Douglas Coyle; Douglas Manuel; Hai V Nguyen; Ba' Pham; Andrew L Pipe; Robert D Reid Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 7.552