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

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 (€) 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 €918 and €3786 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 €4000/QALY for tobacco cessation treatment.

Using motivational interviewing to facilitate death talk in end-of-life care: an ethical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity arising from unprepared bereavement is a problem that affects close personal relations of individuals at the end-of-life. The bereavement studies literature demonstrates that a lack of preparedness for a loved one's death is a risk factor for secondary psychological morbidity among survivors. Short awareness time of death negatively correlates to preparedness for bereavement. The absence of disclosure of end-of-life diagnosis and prognosis to close personal relations ('death talk') between patients and loved ones, or health professionals and loved ones, may contribute to short awareness time of death. To increase awareness time of death, we might attempt to increase patient first-personal disclosure of end-of-life diagnosis and prognosis to loved-ones, and/or patient consent to health professional disclosure of the same. MAIN TEXT: Interventions based on motivational interviewing in end-of-life care whose aim is to facilitate death talk, either by the patient directly, or by a health professional with the patient's consent, may offer a part solution to the problem of unprepared bereavement. This paper evaluates the ethical permissibility of such interventions. We consider two ethical objections to using motivational interviewing in this way: first, that it is inappropriate for practitioners to seek disclosure as an outcome in this setting; second, that aiming at disclosure risks manipulating individuals into death talk. While it need not be impermissible to direct individuals toward disclosure of end-of-life diagnosis/prognosis, the objection from manipulation implies that it is pro tanto ethically preferable to use motivational interviewing in a non-directive mode in death talk conversations. However, insofar as non-directive motivational interviewing requires more advanced skills, and thus may be more difficult to learn and to practise, we advance that it may be ethically permissible, all things considered, to employ directional, or specific outcome-oriented, motivational interviewing. CONCLUSION: Motivational interviewing interventions in end-of-life care whose aim is to facilitate death talk, either by the patient directly, or by a health professional with the patient's consent may be ethically permissible, all things considered.