Literature DB >> 8936573

Cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation modalities: comparing apples with oranges?

A N Mudde1, H de Vries, V J Strecher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the results of self-help and group treatments for smoking cessation are known, the cost effectiveness and participants' characteristics of these treatments remain mostly undetermined.
METHODS: Consecutive samples of 84 self-help manual requesters and 83 group participants in a Dutch community-based smoking cessation program were subjected to telephone interviews before treatment and after a 6-month follow-up. Participants' baseline characteristics were compared and contrasted with a random sample of nonparticipating smokers (N = 924). Cost effectiveness rates were computed from the perspectives of the society, the steering group, and the participants.
RESULTS: Participants appeared to be more "hardcore smokers" than nonparticipants. Self-help manual requesters seemed easier quitters than group participants. Self-help was at least three times as cost effective as group treatment from the perspective of the program provider and over four times as cost effective from the viewpoint of the participants. When taking savings through not smoking into account, return on the social investment was positive.
CONCLUSIONS: From a social perspective, the project seemed cost effective, compared with medical interventions. Since both modalities attracted different groups of smokers, cost effectiveness comparisons may incorporate the comparison of apples with oranges, and referral to either modality should be based on smokers' characteristics and the societal value placed on health as well.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8936573     DOI: 10.1006/pmed.1996.0110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  8 in total

1.  Guidance for commissioners on the cost effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions. Health Educational Authority.

Authors:  S Parrott; C Godfrey; M Raw; R West; A McNeill
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 2.  The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Joel F Wallace; Scott R Weingarten; Chiun-Fang Chiou; James M Henning; Andriana A Hohlbauch; Margaret S Richards; Nicole S Herzog; Lior S Lewensztain; Joshua J Ofman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  University-Based Smoking Cessation Program Through Pharmacist-Physician Initiative: An Economic Evaluation.

Authors:  Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim; Nagmeldien Ahmed Mohammed Magzoub; Norlela Maarup
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-02-01

4.  Cost effectiveness of a community based research project to help women quit smoking.

Authors:  R H Secker-Walker; R R Holland; C M Lloyd; D Pelkey; B S Flynn
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  An economic evaluation of a video- and text-based computer-tailored intervention for smoking cessation: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Nicola E Stanczyk; Eline S Smit; Daniela N Schulz; Hein de Vries; Catherine Bolman; Jean W M Muris; Silvia M A A Evers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Online advertising as a public health and recruitment tool: comparison of different media campaigns to increase demand for smoking cessation interventions.

Authors:  Amanda L Graham; Pat Milner; Jessie E Saul; Lillian Pfaff
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 7.  A review of economic evaluations of tobacco control programs.

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

8.  Costs of the 'Hartslag Limburg' community heart health intervention.

Authors:  Emma T Ronckers; Wim Groot; Mieke Steenbakkers; Erik Ruland; Andre Ament
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2006-03-02       Impact factor: 3.295

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.