» Articles » PMID: 29886411

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions Using Cell Phones in a Low-income Population

Overview
Journal Tob Control
Specialty Psychiatry
Date 2018 Jun 11
PMID 29886411
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The prevalence of cigarette smoking is significantly higher among those living at or below the federal poverty level. Cell phone-based interventions among such populations have the potential to reduce smoking rates and be cost-effective.

Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three smoking cessation interventions: Standard Care (SC) (brief advice to quit, nicotine replacement therapy and self-help written materials), Enhanced Care (EC) (SC plus cell phone-delivered messaging) and Intensive Care (IC) (EC plus cell phone-delivered counselling). Quit rates were obtained from Project ACTION (Adult smoking Cessation Treatment through Innovative Outreach to Neighborhoods). We evaluated shorter-term outcomes of cost per quit and long-term outcomes using cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

Results: For men, EC cost an additional $541 per quit vs SC; however, IC cost an additional $5232 per quit vs EC. For women, EC was weakly dominated by IC-IC cost an additional $1092 per quit vs SC. Similarly, for men, EC had incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $426 per QALY gained vs SC; however, IC resulted in ICER of $4127 per QALY gained vs EC. For women, EC was weakly dominated; the ICER of IC vs SC was $1251 per QALY gained. The ICER was below maximum acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY under all alternative modelling assumptions.

Discussion: Cell phone interventions for low socioeconomic groups are a cost-effective use of healthcare resources. Intensive Care was the most cost-effective strategy both for men and women.

Trial Registration Number: NCT00948129; Results.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the effectiveness of Smoke-Free Home SafeCare, an integrated intervention, among families at risk for secondhand smoke exposure and child maltreatment in the United States: a study protocol for a hybrid type 1 trial.

Perry E, Self-Brown S, Koontz K, Haardorfer R, Whitaker D, Spears C Trials. 2024; 25(1):661.

PMID: 39375710 PMC: 11457381. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08466-2.


Psychological Therapies Used for the Reduction of Habitual Cigarette Smoking Cigarette Consumption: A Systematic Review.

Carrillo-Sierra S, Cardenas-Caceres L, Cadrazco-Urquijo J, Salazar-Gomez A, Rivera-Porras D, Bermudez V Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024; 21(6).

PMID: 38929001 PMC: 11203857. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21060753.


Project phoenix: Pilot randomized controlled trial of a smartphone-delivered intervention for people who are not ready to quit smoking.

Businelle M, Benson L, Hebert E, Neil J, Kendzor D, Frank-Pearce S Drug Alcohol Depend. 2024; 260:111351.

PMID: 38838477 PMC: 11179962. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.111351.


Mobile Health Interventions for Substance Use Disorders.

Businelle M, Perski O, Hebert E, Kendzor D Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2024; 20(1):49-76.

PMID: 38346293 PMC: 11855402. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080822-042337.


Technology-based interventions for tobacco smoking prevention and treatment: a 20-year bibliometric analysis (2003-2022).

Sweileh W Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2024; 19(1):13.

PMID: 38321493 PMC: 10848402. DOI: 10.1186/s13011-024-00595-w.


References
1.
. Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002; 4(2):149-59. DOI: 10.1080/14622200210123581. View

2.
Zhu S, Anderson C, Tedeschi G, Rosbrook B, Johnson C, Byrd M . Evidence of real-world effectiveness of a telephone quitline for smokers. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(14):1087-93. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa020660. View

3.
Velicer W, Prochaska J, Rossi J, Snow M . Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies. Psychol Bull. 1992; 111(1):23-41. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.23. View

4.
Severens J, Milne R . Discounting health outcomes in economic evaluation: the ongoing debate. Value Health. 2004; 7(4):397-401. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.74002.x. View

5.
Pisinger C, Godtfredsen N . Is there a health benefit of reduced tobacco consumption? A systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2007; 9(6):631-46. DOI: 10.1080/14622200701365327. View