Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up.

DSpace Repository

Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up.

Details

Files for download
Icon
Overview of item record
Publication Article, peer reviewed scientific
Title Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up.
Author Feldman, Inna ; Helgason, Asgeir Runar ; Johansson, Pia ; Tegelberg, Ake ; Nohlert, Eva ; Tegelberg, Åke
Date 2019
English 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.
DOI https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030934 (link to publisher's fulltext.)
Link https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e030934 .Icon
Publisher BMJ
Host/Issue BMJ Open;8
Volume 9
ISSN 2044-6055
Language eng (iso)
Subject Medicine
Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY
Handle http://hdl.handle.net/2043/30264 Permalink to this page
Facebook

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Details

Search


Browse

My Account

Statistics