Estimates of costs for modelling return on investment from smoking cessation interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Modelling return on investment (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires estimates of their costs and benefits. This paper describes a standardized method developed to source both economic costs of tobacco smoking and costs of implementing cessation interventions for a Europe-wide ROI model [European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD)]. DESIGN: Focused search of administrative and published data. A standardized checklist was developed in order to ensure consistency in methods of data collection. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult population (15+ years) in Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. For passive smoking-related costs, child population (0-15 years) was also included. MEASUREMENTS: Costs of treating smoking-attributable diseases; productivity losses due to smoking-attributable absenteeism; and costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions. FINDINGS: Annual costs (per case) of treating smoking attributable lung cancer were between €5074 (Hungary) and €52 106 (Germany); coronary heart disease between €1521 (Spain) and €3955 (Netherlands); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between €1280 (England) and €4199 (Spain); stroke between €1829 (Hungary) and €14 880 (Netherlands). Costs (per recipient) of smoking cessation medications were estimated to be: for standard duration of varenicline between €225 (England) and €465 (Hungary); for bupropion between €25 (Hungary) and €220 (Germany). Costs (per recipient) of providing behavioural support were also wide-ranging: one-to-one behavioural support between €34 (Hungary) and €474 (Netherlands); and group-based behavioural support between €12 (Hungary) and €257 (Germany). The costs (per recipient) of delivering brief physician advice were: €24 (England); €9 (Germany); €4 (Hungary); €33 (Netherlands); and €27 (Spain). CONCLUSIONS: Costs of treating smoking-attributable diseases as well as the costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions vary substantially across Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. Estimates for the costs of these diseases and interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative smoking cessation scenarios in Spain: results from the EQUIPTMOD.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative smoking cessation scenarios from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS). DESIGN: We used the European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD), a Markov-based state transition economic model, to estimate the return on investment (ROI) of: (a) the current provision of smoking cessation services (brief physician advice and printed self-helped material + smoking ban and tobacco duty at current levels); and (b) four alternative scenarios to complement the current provision: coverage of proactive telephone calls; nicotine replacement therapy (mono and combo) [prescription nicotine replacement therapy (Rx NRT)]; varenicline (standard duration); or bupropion. A rate of 3% was used to discount life-time costs and benefits. SETTING: Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Adult smoking population (16+ years). MEASUREMENTS: Health-care costs associated with treatment of smoking attributable diseases (lung cancer, coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary infection and stroke); intervention costs; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were summarized using various ROI estimates. FINDINGS: The cost of implementing the current provision of smoking cessation services is approximately €61 million in the current year. This translates to 18 quitters per 1000 smokers and a life-time benefit-cost ratio of 5, compared with no such provision. All alternative scenarios were dominant (cost-saving: less expensive to run and generated more QALYs) from the life-time perspective, compared with the current provision. The life-time benefit-cost ratios were: 1.87 (proactive telephone calls); 1.17 (Rx NRT); 2.40 (varenicline-standard duration); and bupropion (2.18). The results remained robust in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: According to the EQUIPTMOD modelling tool it would be cost-effective for the Spanish authorities to expand the reach of existing GP brief interventions for smoking cessation, provide pro-active telephone support, and reimburse smoking cessation medication to smokers trying to stop. Such policies would more than pay for themselves in the long run.

OPTIMIZING USABILITY OF AN ECONOMIC DECISION SUPPORT TOOL: PROTOTYPE OF THE EQUIPT TOOL.

OBJECTIVES: Economic decision-support tools can provide valuable information for tobacco control stakeholders, but their usability may impact the adoption of such tools. This study aims to illustrate a mixed-method usability evaluation of an economic decision-support tool for tobacco control, using the EQUIPT ROI tool prototype as a case study. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed methods design was used, including a heuristic evaluation, a thinking aloud approach, and a questionnaire testing and exploring the usability of the Return of Investment tool. RESULTS: A total of sixty-six users evaluated the tool (thinking aloud) and completed the questionnaire. For the heuristic evaluation, four experts evaluated the interface. In total twenty-one percent of the respondents perceived good usability. A total of 118 usability problems were identified, from which twenty-six problems were categorized as most severe, indicating high priority to fix them before implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Combining user-based and expert-based evaluation methods is recommended as these were shown to identify unique usability problems. The evaluation provides input to optimize usability of a decision-support tool, and may serve as a vantage point for other developers to conduct usability evaluations to refine similar tools before wide-scale implementation. Such studies could reduce implementation gaps by optimizing usability, enhancing in turn the research impact of such interventions.

Smoking, health-related quality of life and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The economic evaluation of tobacco control policies requires the adoption of assumptions about the impact of changes in smoking status on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Estimates for such impacts are necessary for different populations. This paper aims to test whether smoking status has an independent effect on HRQoL over and above the effect derived from the increased likelihood of suffering a tobacco related disease, and to calculate utility values for the Spanish population. METHODS: Using data from the Spanish Encuesta Nacional de Salud of 2011-12, we estimate statistical models for HRQoL as measured by the EQ-5D-5L instrument as a function of smoking status. We include a comprehensive set of controls for biological, clinical, lifestyle and socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: Smoking status has an independent, statistically significant effect on HRQoL. However, the size of the effect is small. The typical smoking related diseases, such as lung cancer, are associated with a reduction in HRQoL about 5 times larger than the difference between current smokers and never smokers. CONCLUSION: Attributing substantive HRQoL gains to quitting smoking as well as accounting for the concomitant HRQoL gain derived from a smaller likelihood of contracting tobacco related diseases might lead to an overestimation of the benefits of tobacco control policies. Nonetheless, the relatively large drops in HRQoL associated with being diagnosed with diseases that might be causally linked to tobacco suggest that such diseases should not be omitted from the economic evaluations of tobacco control policies.

[Cost-benefit of medical advice for quitting smoking in the Region of Murcia]. / Coste-utilidad del consejo médico para dejar de fumar en la Región de Murcia.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-benefit analysis of brief medical advice to quit smoking in the Region of Murcia. DESIGN: A cost-benefit analysis is performed on brief medical advice to quit smoking versus non-intervention. A Markov model is used to estimate the costs (€ in 2014), under the perspective of the National Health System, and health outcomes. These are measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The time horizon of the analysis is 20years, and costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. A univariate and multivariate deterministic sensitivity analysis is performed. LOCATION: Region of Murcia. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers in the Region of Murcia. INTERVENTIONS: Brief advice to quit smoking. KEY MEASURES: Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). RESULTS: With a time horizon of 5years (2018), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) would be €172,400 per QALY gained; at 10years (2023) the ICER was €30,300 per QALY gained; and, for the maximum horizon considered by the model, the ICER was €7,260 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Brief advice intervention is more efficient in the long-term than in the short-term and, depending on the Spanish cost-benefit threshold, public funding for this intervention would be recommended.

Similarities and differences between stakeholders' opinions on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) information across five European countries: results from the EQUIPT survey.

BACKGROUND: The European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) project aimed to study transferability of economic evidence by co-creating the Tobacco Return On Investment (ROI) tool, previously developed in the United Kingdom, for four sample countries (Germany, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands). The EQUIPT tool provides policymakers and stakeholders with customized information about the economic and wider returns on the investment in evidence-based tobacco control, including smoking cessation interventions. A Stakeholder Interview Survey was developed to engage with the stakeholders in early phases of the development and country adaptation of the ROI tool. The survey assessed stakeholders' information needs, awareness about underlying principles used in economic analyses, opinion about the importance, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tobacco control interventions, and willingness to use a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) tool such as the ROI tool. METHODS: A cross sectional study using a mixed method approach was conducted among participating stakeholders in the sample countries and the United Kingdom. The individual questionnaire contained open-ended questions as well as single choice and 7- or 3-point Likert-scale questions. The results corresponding to the priority and needs assessment and to the awareness of stakeholders about underlying principles used in economic analysis are analysed by country and stakeholder categories. RESULTS: Stakeholders considered it important that the decisions on the investments in tobacco control interventions should be supported by scientific evidence, including prevalence of smoking, cost of smoking, quality of life, mortality due to smoking, and effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of smoking cessation interventions. The proposed ROI tool was required to provide this granularity of information. The majority of the stakeholders were aware of the general principles of economic analyses used in decision making contexts but they did not appear to have in-depth knowledge about specific technical details. Generally, stakeholders' answers showed larger variability by country than by stakeholder category. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders across different European countries viewed the use of HTA evidence to be an important factor in their decision-making process. Further, they considered themselves to be capable of interpreting the results from a ROI tool and were highly motivated to use it.

Understanding the stakeholders' intention to use economic decision-support tools: A cross-sectional study with the tobacco return on investment tool.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increased number of economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions, the uptake by stakeholders continues to be limited. Understanding the underlying mechanism in adopting such economic decision-support tools by stakeholders is therefore important. By applying the I-Change Model, this study aims to identify which factors determine potential uptake of an economic decision-support tool, i.e., the Return on Investment tool. METHODS: Stakeholders (decision-makers, purchasers of services/pharma products, professionals/service providers, evidence generators and advocates of health promotion) were interviewed in five countries, using an I-Change based questionnaire. MANOVA's were conducted to assess differences between intenders and non-intenders regarding beliefs. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify the main explanatory variables of intention to use an economic decision-support tool. FINDINGS: Ninety-three stakeholders participated. Significant differences in beliefs were found between non-intenders and intenders: risk perception, attitude, social support, and self-efficacy towards using the tool. Regression showed that demographics, pre-motivational, and motivational factors explained 69% of the variation in intention. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to provide a theoretical framework to understand differences in beliefs between stakeholders who do or do not intend to use economic decision-support tools, and empirically corroborating the framework. This contributes to our understanding of the facilitators and barriers to the uptake of these studies.

[A return on investment tool in tobacco control: what do stakeholders think?]. / Herramienta de retorno de la inversión en control del tabaquismo: ¿qué opinan aquellos que toman decisiones?

INTRODUCTION: The European EQUIPT study will co-create a return on investment tool in several countries, aiming to provide decision makers with information and justification on the returns that can be generated by investing in tobacco control. This study aimed to identify the needs of potential users in Spain in order to provide information on the transferability of the tool. METHODS: Telephone interviews with stakeholders were conducted including questions about the implementation of the tool, intended use and tobacco control interventions. RESULTS: Implementing the tool could provide added value to the information used in decision-making to advocate for cost-effective policies. The main drawback would be the training and time needed to learn how the tool works and for internal calculations. CONCLUSION: Knowledge and ideas from potential users collected in this study could inform the EQUIPT Tool adaptation. Thus, stakeholders could have an instrument that assists them on making healthcare decisions.