Premium
Model‐based economic evaluations in smoking cessation and their transferability to new contexts: a systematic review
Author(s) -
Berg Marrit L.,
Cheung Kei Long,
Hiligsmann Mickaël,
Evers Silvia,
Kinderen Reina J. A.,
Kulchaitanaroaj Puttarin,
Pokhrel Subhash
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
addiction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.424
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1360-0443
pISSN - 0965-2140
DOI - 10.1111/add.13748
Subject(s) - smoking cessation , checklist , economic evaluation , medicine , context (archaeology) , systematic review , psychological intervention , quality adjusted life year , population , transferability , medline , actuarial science , cost effectiveness , environmental health , psychology , statistics , psychiatry , risk analysis (engineering) , business , logit , geography , mathematics , archaeology , pathology , political science , law , cognitive psychology
Aims To identify different types of models used in economic evaluations of smoking cessation, analyse the quality of the included models examining their attributes and ascertain their transferability to a new context. Methods A systematic review of the literature on the economic evaluation of smoking cessation interventions published between 1996 and April 2015, identified via Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The checklist‐based quality of the included studies and transferability scores was based on the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) criteria. Studies that were not in smoking cessation, not original research, not a model‐based economic evaluation, that did not consider adult population and not from a high‐income country were excluded. Findings Among the 64 economic evaluations included in the review, the state‐transition Markov model was the most frequently used method ( n = 30/64), with quality adjusted life years (QALY) being the most frequently used outcome measure in a life‐time horizon. A small number of the included studies (13 of 64) were eligible for EURONHEED transferability checklist. The overall transferability scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.97, with an average score of 0.75. The average score per section was 0.69 (range = 0.35–0.92). The relative transferability of the studies could not be established due to a limitation present in the EURONHEED method. Conclusion All existing economic evaluations in smoking cessation lack in one or more key study attributes necessary to be fully transferable to a new context.