Open AccessCost effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions
Author(s) -
Shearer James,
Shanahan Marian
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
australian and new zealand journal of public health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.946
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1753-6405
pISSN - 1326-0200
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2006.tb00458.x
Subject(s) - bupropion , smoking cessation , nicotine replacement therapy , psychological intervention , medicine , telephone counseling , cost effectiveness , population , cost–benefit analysis , population health , psychiatry , environmental health , risk analysis (engineering) , ecology , pathology , biology
Objective:To identify which smoking cessation interventions provide the most efficient use of health care resources at a population level.Methods:Effectiveness data were obtained from a review of the international literature. Costs and effects of smoking cessation interventions were estimated from the perspective of the Australian Government. Treatment costs and effects were modelled using incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios. Assumptions regarding effectiveness, resource use and costs were tested by sensitivity analysis.Results:From the population perspective, telephone counselling appeared to be the most cost‐effective intervention. Adding proactive forms of telephone counselling increased the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies at a low incremental cost and, therefore, this could be a highly cost‐effective strategy. Bupropion appeared to be more cost effective than nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Combined bupropion and NRT did not appear to be cost effective.Conclusions:General practitioners should be encouraged to refer patients to telephone quit lines and if prescribing pharmacotherapy consider the addition of telephone counselling.Implications:The results support greater investment in proactive forms of telephone counselling and more formal integration of pharmacotherapies with proactive telephone counselling services as costeffective strategies for reducing population‐level smoking rates.