Cargando…
Cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives
AIMS: To perform an economic evaluation of a work‐place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives. DESIGN: A trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost–utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7027826/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31849138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14861 |
_version_ | 1783498913025622016 |
---|---|
author | van den Brand, Floor A. Nagelhout, Gera E. Winkens, Bjorn Chavannes, Niels H. van Schayck, Onno C. P. Evers, Silvia M. A. A. |
author_facet | van den Brand, Floor A. Nagelhout, Gera E. Winkens, Bjorn Chavannes, Niels H. van Schayck, Onno C. P. Evers, Silvia M. A. A. |
author_sort | van den Brand, Floor A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: To perform an economic evaluation of a work‐place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives. DESIGN: A trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost–utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employer's perspective. SETTING: Sixty‐one companies in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 604 tobacco‐smoking employees. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: A 7‐week work‐place smoking cessation group training programme. The intervention group earned gift vouchers of €350 for 12 months’ continuous abstinence. The comparator group received no incentives. MEASUREMENTS: Online questionnaires were administered to assess quality of life (EQ‐5D‐5 L) and resource use during the 14‐month follow‐up period (2‐month training period plus 12‐month abstinence period). For the CEA the primary outcome measure was carbon monoxide (CO)‐validated continuous abstinence; for the CUA the primary outcome was quality‐adjusted life years (QALY). Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) tables were used to determine cost‐effectiveness from a life‐time perspective. FINDINGS: Of the participants in the intervention group, 41.1% had quit smoking compared with 26.4% in the control group. From a societal perspective with a 14‐month follow‐up period, the ICER per quitter for an intervention with financial incentives compared with no incentives was €11 546. From an employer's perspective, the ICER was €5686. There was no significant difference in QALYs between the intervention and control group within the 14‐month follow‐up period. The intervention was dominated by the comparator in the primary analysis at a threshold of €20 000 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, these results were uncertain. A life‐time perspective showed an ICER of €1249 (95% confidence interval = €850–2387) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives may be cost‐effective in increasing quitting smoking, particularly from a life‐time perspective. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7027826 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70278262020-02-24 Cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives van den Brand, Floor A. Nagelhout, Gera E. Winkens, Bjorn Chavannes, Niels H. van Schayck, Onno C. P. Evers, Silvia M. A. A. Addiction Research Reports AIMS: To perform an economic evaluation of a work‐place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives. DESIGN: A trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost–utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employer's perspective. SETTING: Sixty‐one companies in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 604 tobacco‐smoking employees. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: A 7‐week work‐place smoking cessation group training programme. The intervention group earned gift vouchers of €350 for 12 months’ continuous abstinence. The comparator group received no incentives. MEASUREMENTS: Online questionnaires were administered to assess quality of life (EQ‐5D‐5 L) and resource use during the 14‐month follow‐up period (2‐month training period plus 12‐month abstinence period). For the CEA the primary outcome measure was carbon monoxide (CO)‐validated continuous abstinence; for the CUA the primary outcome was quality‐adjusted life years (QALY). Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) tables were used to determine cost‐effectiveness from a life‐time perspective. FINDINGS: Of the participants in the intervention group, 41.1% had quit smoking compared with 26.4% in the control group. From a societal perspective with a 14‐month follow‐up period, the ICER per quitter for an intervention with financial incentives compared with no incentives was €11 546. From an employer's perspective, the ICER was €5686. There was no significant difference in QALYs between the intervention and control group within the 14‐month follow‐up period. The intervention was dominated by the comparator in the primary analysis at a threshold of €20 000 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, these results were uncertain. A life‐time perspective showed an ICER of €1249 (95% confidence interval = €850–2387) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives may be cost‐effective in increasing quitting smoking, particularly from a life‐time perspective. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-12-17 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7027826/ /pubmed/31849138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14861 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Research Reports van den Brand, Floor A. Nagelhout, Gera E. Winkens, Bjorn Chavannes, Niels H. van Schayck, Onno C. P. Evers, Silvia M. A. A. Cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives |
title | Cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives |
title_full | Cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives |
title_fullStr | Cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives |
title_short | Cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives |
title_sort | cost‐effectiveness and cost–utility analysis of a work‐place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives |
topic | Research Reports |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7027826/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31849138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.14861 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandenbrandfloora costeffectivenessandcostutilityanalysisofaworkplacesmokingcessationinterventionwithandwithoutfinancialincentives AT nagelhoutgerae costeffectivenessandcostutilityanalysisofaworkplacesmokingcessationinterventionwithandwithoutfinancialincentives AT winkensbjorn costeffectivenessandcostutilityanalysisofaworkplacesmokingcessationinterventionwithandwithoutfinancialincentives AT chavannesnielsh costeffectivenessandcostutilityanalysisofaworkplacesmokingcessationinterventionwithandwithoutfinancialincentives AT vanschayckonnocp costeffectivenessandcostutilityanalysisofaworkplacesmokingcessationinterventionwithandwithoutfinancialincentives AT everssilviamaa costeffectivenessandcostutilityanalysisofaworkplacesmokingcessationinterventionwithandwithoutfinancialincentives |