| 1. |
- Feldman, Inna, Docent, 1951-, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting : long-term follow-up
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 2044-6055. ; 9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a high-intensity and a low-intensity smoking cessation treatment programme (HIT and LIT) using long-term follow-up effectiveness data and to validate the cost-effectiveness results based on short-term follow-up.Design and outcome measures: Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a randomised controlled trial as numbers of abstinent participants after 1 and 5-8 years of follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective using a Markov model by estimating future disease-related costs (in Euro (Euro) 2018) and health effects (in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). Programmes were explicitly compared in an incremental analysis, and the results were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Setting: The study was conducted in dental clinics in Sweden.Participants: 294 smokers aged 19-71 years were included in the study.Interventions: Behaviour therapy, coaching and pharmacological advice (HIT) was compared with one counselling session introducing a conventional self-help programme (LIT).Results: The more costly HIT led to higher number of 6-month continuous abstinent participants after 1 year and higher number of sustained abstinent participants after 5-8 years, which translates into larger societal costs avoided and health gains than LIT. The incremental cost/QALY of HIT compared with LIT amounted to Euro918 and Euro3786 using short-term and long-term effectiveness, respectively, which is considered very cost-effective in Sweden.Conclusion: CEA favours the more costly HIT if decision makers are willing to spend at least Euro4000/QALY for tobacco cessation treatment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Nohlert, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of a high and a low intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dentistry setting in Sweden : a randomized trial
- 2009
-
Ingår i: BMC Public Health. - Stockholm : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2458. ; 9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundTobacco is still the number one life style risk factor for ill health and premature death and also one of the major contributors to oral problems and diseases. Dentistry may be a potential setting for several aspects of clinical public health interventions and there is a growing interest in several countries to develop tobacco cessation support in dentistry setting. The aim of the present study was to assess the relative effectiveness of a high intensity intervention compared with a low intensity intervention for smoking cessation support in a dental clinic setting.Methods300 smokers attending dental or general health care were randomly assigned to two arms and referred to the local dental clinic for smoking cessation support. One arm received support with low intensity treatment (LIT), whereas the other group was assigned to high intensity treatment (HIT) support. The main outcome measures included self-reported point prevalence and continuous abstinence (≥ 183 days) at the 12-month follow-up.ResultsFollow-up questionnaires were returned from 86% of the participants. People in the HIT-arm were twice as likely to report continuous abstinence compared with the LIT-arm (18% vs. 9%, p = 0.02). There was a difference (not significant) between the arms in point prevalence abstinence in favour of the HIT-protocol (23% vs. 16%). However, point prevalence cessation rates in the LIT-arm reporting additional support were relatively high (23%) compared with available data assessing abstinence in smokers trying to quit without professional support.ConclusionScreening for willingness to quit smoking within the health care system and offering smoking cessation support within dentistry may be an effective model for smoking cessation support in Sweden. The LIT approach is less expensive and time consuming and may be appropriate as a first treatment option, but should be integrated with other forms of available support in the community. The more extensive and expensive HIT-protocol should be offered to those who are unable to quit with the LIT approach in combination with other support.
|
|
| 3. |
- Nohlert, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of a high- and a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in Sweden : A randomized trial
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Nicotine & tobacco research. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-2203 .- 1469-994X. ; 15:9, s. 1519-1527
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE:To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity treatment (HIT) and a low-intensity treatment (LIT) for smoking cessation.METHODS:The societal and health care perspective economic evaluation was based on the reported number of quitters at 12-month follow-up (point prevalence) from a randomized controlled trial of 2 smoking cessation programs in Sweden. Future disease-related costs (in Swedish kronor [SEK] 2004; SEK7.35 = USD1) and health effects (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were estimated via a Markov model comprising lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease including stroke with costs and QALYs discounted 3% annually.RESULTS:HIT was more effective than LIT (23% vs. 16% quitters), but at a considerably higher intervention cost: SEK26,100 versus 9,100 per quitter. The model-estimated societal costs avoided did not balance the higher intervention costs, so the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) amounted to SEK100,000 per QALY for HIT versus LIT. All sensitivity analyses indicated an ICER below SEK300,000 and that HIT is the preferred option if the decision maker willingness-to-pay exceeds SEK50,000 per QALY. Compared with no intervention, LIT was cost saving, whereas HIT was estimated at SEK8,400 per QALY.CONCLUSIONS:Compared with no smoking cessation program, it is a societal waste not to implement the LIT as it is estimated to result in lower societal costs. The incremental cost per QALY gained of SEK100,000 for HIT is considered very cost-effective in Sweden. Thus, if smoking cessation programs are judged in the same manner as other Swedish health care measures, the high-intensity program should be chosen before the low-cost program.
|
|
