Tobacco control interventions for populations living in subsidised, low-income housing: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: People living in subsidised low-income housing are more likely to smoke and experience secondhand smoke exposure compared to the general population. While tobacco control interventions have yielded substantial population health benefits, people living in subsidised housing experience a greater burden of tobacco-related harms. We synthesised existing peer-reviewed and grey literature to determine tobacco control interventions that have been implemented in subsidised housing globally, and to understand their impact on smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. METHODS: We searched five databases for peer-reviewed research, and Google Advanced for grey literature. We adhered to the JBI Scoping Review Methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. RESULTS: Fifty-seven sources met the eligibility criteria. The most common type of intervention was mandatory smoking bans covering all indoor spaces (n = 32), followed by cessation-focused interventions (n = 19). Interventions that indirectly addressed smoking were the least common (n = 6). Our findings suggest smoking bans can increase smoking cessation and reduce secondhand smoke exposure, especially if implemented alongside cessation support strategies. CONCLUSION: Tobacco control interventions targeting subsidised housing demonstrate positive effects on tobacco-related outcomes for residents and provide an important opportunity to address health disparities. Future research should examine the long-term impacts of the interventions, including potential unintended consequences, in varied subsidised housing contexts.

Economic effects for citizens and the government of a country-level tobacco endgame strategy: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Aotearoa-New Zealand (A/NZ) was the first country to pass a comprehensive commercial tobacco endgame strategy into law. Key components include the denicotinisation of smoked tobacco products and a major reduction in tobacco retail outlets. Understanding the potential long-term economic impacts of such measures is important for government planning. DESIGN: A tobacco policy simulation model that evaluated the health impacts of the A/NZ Smokefree Action Plan was extended to evaluate the economic effects from both government and citizen perspectives. Estimates were presented in 2021 US$, discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: The modelled endgame policy package generates considerable growth in income for the A/NZ population with a total cumulative gain of US$31 billion by 2050. From a government perspective, increased superannuation payments and reduced tobacco excise tax revenue result in a negative net financial position and a cumulative shortfall of US$11.5 billion by 2050. In a sensitivity analysis considering future labour force changes, the government's cumulative net position remained negative by 2050, but only by US$1.9 billion. CONCLUSIONS: A policy such as the A/NZ Smokefree Action Plan is likely to produce substantial economic benefits for citizens, and modest impacts on government finances related to reduced tobacco tax and increases in aged pensions due to increased life expectancy. Such costs can be anticipated and planned for and might be largely offset by future increases in the size of the labour force and the proportion of people 65+ years old working in the formal economy.

Tobacco endgame intervention impacts on health gains and Maori:non-Maori health inequity: a simulation study of the Aotearoa/New Zealand Tobacco Action Plan.

BACKGROUND: The Aotearoa/New Zealand Government is aiming to end the tobacco epidemic and markedly reduce Maori:non-Maori health inequalities by legislating: (1) denicotinisation of retail tobacco, (2) 95% reduction in retail outlets and (c) a tobacco free-generation whereby people born after 2005 are unable to legally purchase tobacco. This paper estimates future smoking prevalence, mortality inequality and health-adjusted life year (HALY) impacts of these strategies. METHODS: We used a Markov model to estimate future yearly smoking and vaping prevalence, linked to a proportional multistate life table model to estimate future mortality and HALYs. RESULTS: The combined package of strategies (plus media promotion) reduced adult smoking prevalence from 31.8% in 2022 to 7.3% in 2025 for Maori, and 11.8% to 2.7% for non-Maori. The 5% smoking prevalence target was forecast to be achieved in 2026 and 2027 for Maori males and females, respectively.The HALY gains for the combined package over the population's remaining lifespan were estimated to be 594 000 (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 443 000 to 738 000; 3% discount rate). Denicotinisation alone achieved 97% of these HALYs, the retail strategy 19% and tobacco-free generation 12%.By 2040, the combined package was forcat to reduce the gap in Maori:non-Maori all-cause mortality rates for people 45+ years old by 22.9% (95% UI: 19.9% to 26.2%) for females and 9.6% (8.4% to 11.0%) for males. CONCLUSION: A tobacco endgame strategy, especially denicotinisation, could deliver large health benefits and dramatically reduce health inequities between Maori and non-Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Updated Health and Cost Impacts of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, Using Recent Estimates of Relative Harm for Vaping Compared to Smoking.

BACKGROUND: Measuring population health and costs effects of liberalizing access to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) is an evolving field with high persisting uncertainty. A critical area of uncertainty for policy-makers are estimates of net harms from ENDS relative to cigarettes, therefore, we model these harms using updated estimates incorporating disease specificity. METHODS: We use updated estimates of relative harm of vaping vs smoking, based upon relevant biomarker studies to model the impact of liberalizing access to ENDS in New Zealand (NZ), relative to a ban (where ENDS are not legally available), in an existing proportional multi-state life-table model of 16 tobacco-related diseases. RESULTS: This modeling suggests that ENDS liberalization results in an expected gain of 195 000 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the remainder of the NZ population's lifespan. There was wide uncertainty in QALYs gained (95% uncertainty interval [UI] = -8000 to 406 000) with a 3.2% probability of net health loss (based upon the number of simulation runs returning positive QALY gains). The average per capita health gain was 0.044 QALYs (equivalent to an extra 16 days of healthy life). Health system cost-savings were expected to be NZ$2.8 billion (US$2.1 billion in 2020 US$; 95%UI: -0.3 to 6.2 billion [2011 NZ$]), with an estimated 3% chance of a net increase in per capita cost. CONCLUSIONS: This updated modeling around liberalizing ENDs in NZ, still suggests likely net health and cost-saving benefits-but of lesser magnitude than previous work and with a small possibility of net harm to population health. IMPLICATIONS: This study found evidence using updated biomarker studies that ENDS liberalization could result in QALY gains across the New Zealand population lifespan that are also cost-saving to the health system. Governments should include the information from these types of modeling studies in their decision-making around potentially improving access to ENDS for existing smokers, while at the same further reducing access to tobacco.

Association of Simulated COVID-19 Policy Responses for Social Restrictions and Lockdowns With Health-Adjusted Life-Years and Costs in Victoria, Australia.

Importance: Countries have varied enormously in how they have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from elimination strategies (eg, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan) to tight suppression (not aiming for elimination but rather to keep infection rates low [eg, South Korea]) to loose suppression (eg, Europe, United States) to virtually unmitigated (eg, Brazil, India). Weighing the best option, based on health and economic consequences due to lockdowns, is necessary. Objective: To determine the optimal policy response, using a net monetary benefit (NMB) approach, for policies ranging from aggressive elimination and moderate elimination to tight suppression (aiming for 1-5 cases per million per day) and loose suppression (5-25 cases per million per day). Design Setting and Participants: Using governmental data from the state of Victoria, Australia, and other collected data, 2 simulation models in series were conducted of all residents (population, 6.4 million) for SARS-CoV-2 infections for 1 year from September 1, 2020. An agent-based model (ABM) was used to estimate daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and time in 5 stages of social restrictions (stages 1, 1b, 2, 3, and 4) for 4 policy response settings (aggressive elimination, moderate elimination, tight suppression, and loose suppression), and a proportional multistate life table (PMSLT) model was used to estimate health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) associated with COVID-19 and costs (health systems and health system plus gross domestic product [GDP]). The ABM is a generic COVID-19 model of 2500 agents, or simulants, that was scaled up to the population of interest. Models were specified with data from 2019 (eg, epidemiological data in the PMSLT model) and 2020 (eg, epidemiological and cost consequences of COVID-19). The NMB of each policy option at varying willingness to pay (WTP) per HALY was calculated: NMB = HALYs × WTP - cost. The estimated most cost-effective (optimal) policy response was that with the highest NMB. Main Outcome and Measures: Estimated SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, time under 5 stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure, and GDP losses. Results: In 100 runs of both the ABM and PMSLT models for each of the 4 policy responses, 31.0% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 56.5% of hospitalizations, and 84.6% of deaths occurred among those 60 years and older. Aggressive elimination was associated with the highest percentage of days with the lowest level of restrictions (median, 31.7%; 90% simulation interval [SI], 6.6%-64.4%). However, days in hard lockdown were similar across all 4 strategies. The HALY losses (compared with a scenario without COVID-19) were similar for aggressive elimination (median, 286 HALYs; 90% SI, 219-389 HALYs) and moderate elimination (median, 314 HALYs; 90% SI, 228-413 HALYs), and nearly 8 and 40 times higher for tight suppression and loose suppression, respectively. The median GDP loss was least for moderate elimination (median, $41.7 billion; 90% SI, $29.0-$63.6 billion), but there was substantial overlap in simulation intervals between the 4 strategies. From a health system perspective, aggressive elimination was optimal in 64% of simulations above a WTP of $15 000 per HALY, followed by moderate elimination in 35% of simulations. Moderate elimination was optimal from a GDP perspective in half of the simulations, followed by aggressive elimination in a quarter. Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulation modeling economic evaluation of estimated SARS-CoV-infection rates, time under 5 stages of restrictions, HALYs, health expenditure, and GDP losses in Victoria, Australia, an elimination strategy was associated with the least health losses and usually the fewest GDP losses.

Resistance proportions for eight priority antibiotic-bacterium combinations in OECD, EU/EEA and G20 countries 2000 to 2030: a modelling study.

BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is widely considered an urgent global health issue due to associated mortality and disability, societal and healthcare costs.AimTo estimate the past, current and projected future proportion of infections resistant to treatment for eight priority antibiotic-bacterium combinations from 2000 to 2030 for 52 countries.MethodsWe collated data from a variety of sources including ResistanceMap and World Bank. Feature selection algorithms and multiple imputation were used to produce a complete historical dataset. Forecasts were derived from an ensemble of three models: exponential smoothing, linear regression and random forest. The latter two were informed by projections of antibiotic consumption, out-of-pocket medical spending, populations aged 64 years and older and under 15 years and real gross domestic product. We incorporated three types of uncertainty, producing 150 estimates for each country-antibiotic-bacterium-year.ResultsAverage resistance proportions across antibiotic-bacterium combinations could grow moderately from 17% to 18% within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; growth in 64% of uncertainty sets), from 18% to 19% in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA; growth in 87% of uncertainty sets) and from 29% to 31% in Group of Twenty (G20) countries (growth in 62% of uncertainty sets) between 2015 and 2030. There is broad heterogeneity in levels and rates of change across countries and antibiotic-bacterium combinations from 2000 to 2030.ConclusionIf current trends continue, resistance proportions are projected to marginally increase in the coming years. The estimates indicate there is significant heterogeneity in resistance proportions across countries and antibiotic-bacterium combinations.

Revised Australian national guidelines for colorectal cancer screening: family history.

INTRODUCTION: Screening is an effective means for colorectal cancer prevention and early detection. Family history is strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk. We describe the rationale, evidence and recommendations for colorectal cancer screening by family history for people without a genetic syndrome, as reported in the 2017 revised Australian guidelines. Main recommendations: Based on 10-year risks of colorectal cancer, people at near average risk due to no or weak family history (category 1) are recommended screening by immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years from age 50 to 74 years. Individuals with moderate risk due to their family history (category 2) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 40 to 49 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 50 to 74 years. People with a high risk due to their family history (category 3) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 35 to 44 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 45 to 74 years. Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: By 2019, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will offer all Australians free biennial iFOBT screening from age 50 to 74 years, consistent with the recommendations in these guidelines for category 1. Compared with the 2005 guidelines, there are some minor changes in the family history inclusion criteria for categories 1 and 2; the genetic syndromes have been removed from category 3 and, as a consequence, colonoscopy screening is now every 5 years; and for categories 2 and 3, screening begins with iFOBT for people aged 40 and 35 years, respectively, before transitioning to colonoscopy after 10 years.

Family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios.

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) was introduced in 2006. When fully implemented, the programme will invite people aged 50 to 74 to complete an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To investigate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening occurring outside of the NBCSP, we classified participants (n = 2,480) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) into 3 risk categories (average, moderately increased, and potentially high) based on CRC family history and assessed their screening practices according to national guidelines. We developed a microsimulation to compare hypothetical screening scenarios (70% and 100% uptake) to current participation levels (baseline) and evaluated clinical outcomes and cost for each risk category. The 2 main limitations of this study are as follows: first, the fact that our cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective, which does not include indirect costs and results in overestimated cost-effectiveness ratios, and second, that our natural history model of CRC does not include polyp sojourn time, which determines the rate of cancerous transformation. Screening uptake was low across all family history risk categories (64%-56% reported no screening). For participants at average risk, 18% reported overscreening, while 37% of those in the highest risk categories screened according to guidelines. Higher screening levels would substantially reduce CRC mortality across all risk categories (95 to 305 fewer deaths per 100,000 persons in the 70% scenario versus baseline). For those at average risk, a fully implemented NBCSP represented the most cost-effective approach to prevent CRC deaths (AUS$13,000-16,000 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). For those at moderately increased risk, higher adherence to recommended screening was also highly cost-effective (AUS$19,000-24,000 per QALY). CONCLUSION: Investing in public health strategies to increase adherence to appropriate CRC screening will save lives and deliver high value for money.

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.

The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: The use of blended payment schemes in primary care, including the use of financial incentives to directly reward 'performance' and 'quality' is increasing in a number of countries. There are many examples in the US, and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF) for general practitioners (GPs) in the UK is an example of a major system-wide reform. Despite the popularity of these schemes, there is currently little rigorous evidence of their success in improving the quality of primary health care, or of whether such an approach is cost-effective relative to other ways to improve the quality of care. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to examine the effect of changes in the method and level of payment on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) and to identify:i) the different types of financial incentives that have improved quality;ii) the characteristics of patient populations for whom quality of care has been improved by financial incentives; andiii) the characteristics of PCPs who have responded to financial incentives. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychLIT, and ECONLIT. Searches of Internet-based economics and health economics working paper collections were also conducted. Finally, studies were identified through the reference lists of retrieved articles, websites of key organisations, and from direct contact with key authors in the field. Articles were included if they were published from 2000 to August 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the impact of different financial interventions on the quality of care delivered by primary healthcare physicians (PCPs). Quality of care was defined as patient reported outcome measures, clinical behaviours, and intermediate clinical and physiological measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality, in consultation with two other review authors where there was disagreement. For each included study, we reported the estimated effect sizes and confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this review. Three of the studies evaluated single-threshold target payments, one examined a fixed fee per patient achieving a specified outcome, one study evaluated payments based on the relative ranking of medical groups' performance (tournament-based pay), one study examined a mix of tournament-based pay and threshold payments, and one study evaluated changing from a blended payments scheme to salaried payment. Three cluster RCTs examined smoking cessation; one CBA examined patients' assessment of the quality of care; one CBA examined cervical screening, mammography screening, and HbA1c; one ITS focused on four outcomes in diabetes; and one controlled ITS (a difference-in-difference design) examined cervical screening, mammography screening, HbA1c, childhood immunisation, chlamydia screening, and appropriate asthma medication. Six of the seven studies showed positive but modest effects on quality of care for some primary outcome measures, but not all. One study found no effect on quality of care. Poor study design led to substantial risk of bias in most studies. In particular, none of the studies addressed issues of selection bias as a result of the ability of primary care physicians to select into or out of the incentive scheme or health plan. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of financial incentives to reward PCPs for improving the quality of primary healthcare services is growing. However, there is insufficient evidence to support or not support the use of financial incentives to improve the quality of primary health care. Implementation should proceed with caution and incentive schemes should be more carefully designed before implementation. In addition to basing incentive design more on theory, there is a large literature discussing experiences with these schemes that can be used to draw out a number of lessons that can be learned and that could be used to influence or modify the design of incentive schemes. More rigorous study designs need to be used to account for the selection of physicians into incentive schemes. The use of instrumental variable techniques should be considered to assist with the identification of treatment effects in the presence of selection bias and other sources of unobserved heterogeneity. In randomised trials, care must be taken in using the correct unit of analysis and more attention should be paid to blinding. Studies should also examine the potential unintended consequences of incentive schemes by having a stronger theoretical basis, including a broader range of outcomes, and conducting more extensive subgroup analysis. Studies should more consistently describe i) the type of payment scheme at baseline or in the control group, ii) how payments to medical groups were used and distributed within the groups, and iii) the size of the new payments as a percentage of total revenue. Further research comparing the relative costs and effects of financial incentives with other behaviour change interventions is also required.