Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a work-place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives.
van den Brand, Floor A; Nagelhout, Gera E; Winkens, Bjorn; Chavannes, Niels H; van Schayck, Onno C P; Evers, Silvia M A A.
Afiliação
  • van den Brand FA; Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University (CAPHRI), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Nagelhout GE; Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University (CAPHRI), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Winkens B; Department of Health Promotion, Maastricht University (CAPHRI), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Chavannes NH; IVO Research Institute, The Hague, the Netherlands.
  • van Schayck OCP; Department of Methodology and Statistics, Maastricht University (CAPHRI), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  • Evers SMAA; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Addiction ; 115(3): 534-545, 2020 03.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31849138
ABSTRACT

AIMS:

To perform an economic evaluation of a work-place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives.

DESIGN:

A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employer's perspective.

SETTING:

Sixty-one companies in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS:

A total of 604 tobacco-smoking employees. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR A 7-week work-place smoking cessation group training programme. The intervention group earned gift vouchers of €350 for 12 months' continuous abstinence. The comparator group received no incentives. MEASUREMENTS Online questionnaires were administered to assess quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and resource use during the 14-month follow-up period (2-month training period plus 12-month abstinence period). For the CEA the primary outcome measure was carbon monoxide (CO)-validated continuous abstinence; for the CUA the primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) tables were used to determine cost-effectiveness from a life-time perspective.

FINDINGS:

Of the participants in the intervention group, 41.1% had quit smoking compared with 26.4% in the control group. From a societal perspective with a 14-month follow-up period, the ICER per quitter for an intervention with financial incentives compared with no incentives was €11 546. From an employer's perspective, the ICER was €5686. There was no significant difference in QALYs between the intervention and control group within the 14-month follow-up period. The intervention was dominated by the comparator in the primary analysis at a threshold of €20 000 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, these results were uncertain. A life-time perspective showed an ICER of €1249 (95% confidence interval = €850-2387) per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS:

Financial incentives may be cost-effective in increasing quitting smoking, particularly from a life-time perspective.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Recompensa / Abandono do Hábito de Fumar / Análise Custo-Benefício / Local de Trabalho / Motivação Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Recompensa / Abandono do Hábito de Fumar / Análise Custo-Benefício / Local de Trabalho / Motivação Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article