Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:41:01.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a complementary health intervention: The case of smoking relapse prevention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2004

Thomas N. Chirikos ,
Thaddeus A. Herzog ,
Cathy D. Meade ,
Monica S. Webb  and
Thomas H. Brandon
Thomas N. Chirikos
Affiliation:
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
Thaddeus A. Herzog
Affiliation:
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
Cathy D. Meade
Affiliation:
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
Monica S. Webb
Affiliation:
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
Thomas H. Brandon
Affiliation:
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: We assess the cost-effectiveness of smoking relapse prevention interventions designed to keep quitters from resuming the use of cigarettes. Because relapse prevention is complementary to smoking cessation efforts, the appropriate test of its cost-effectiveness is whether it reduces the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of smoking cessation. The major goal of the study is to carry out such a test.

Methods: Data from a randomized trial that ascertained the effectiveness of alternative modes of smoking relapse prevention are combined with ICER estimates of smoking cessation to assess whether relapse prevention is cost-effective.

Results: The trial produced convincing evidence that relapse prevention yields statistically significant reductions in the proportion of quitters who are smoking at 24 months postquit. The intervention effects are substantial enough to raise the denominator terms of the smoking cessation ICER and, thereby, offset the amount relapse prevention adds to cost numerator terms. In this sense, smoking relapse prevention tends to pay for itself.

Conclusions: Smoking relapse prevention is a highly cost-effective addition to current efforts to curb cigarette consumption. Complementary health interventions of this sort should be assessed by different methods than those commonly found in the cost-effectiveness literature.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness analysisSmoking cessationSmoking economicsSmoking prevention and controlCost-benefit methodology
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2004 , pp. 475 - 480
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brandon TH, Collins BN, Juliano LM, Lazev AB. 2000 Preventing relapse among former smokers: A comparison of minimal interventions via telephone and mail. J Consult Clin Psychol. 68: 103– 113.Google Scholar
Cinciripini PM, McClure JB. 1998 Smoking cessation: Recent developments in behavioral and pharmacologic interventions. Oncology. 12: 249– 259.Google Scholar
Fiscella K, Franks P. 1996 Cost-effectiveness of the transdermal nicotine patch as an adjunct to physicians' smoking cessation counseling. JAMA. 275: 1247– 1251.Google Scholar
Gilpin EA, Pierce JP, Farkas AJ. 1997 Duration of smoking abstinence and success in quitting. J Natl Cancer Inst. 89: 572– 576.Google Scholar
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press
Oster G, Huse DM, Delea TE, Colditz GA. 1986 Cost-effectiveness of nicotine gum as an adjunct to physician's advice against cigarette smoking. JAMA. 256: 1315– 1318.Google Scholar
Rogers RG, Powell-Griner E. 1991 Life expectancies of cigarette smokers and nonsmokers in the United States. Soc Sci Med. 32: 1151– 1159.Google Scholar
Swan GE, Ward MM, Carmetti D, Jack LM. 1993 Differential rates of relapse in subgroups of male and female smokers. J Clin Epidemiol. 46: 1041– 1053.Google Scholar