This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Ronckers, E. T. Articles by Ament, A.J.H.A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ronckers, E. T. Articles by Ament, A.J.H.A. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Quitting Smoking Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Smoking Cessation: Standardizing the Cost-Effectiveness

Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, and the Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, the Netherlands., S.Ronckers{at}BEOZ.unimaas.nl

W. Groot, PhD

Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, and the Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

A.J.H.A. Ament, PhD

Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, and the Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Objectives. This study was performed to render cost-effectiveness studies on smoking cessation therapies, utilized until now, more comparable and more useful for medical decision making. Methods. The cost-effectiveness ratios reported by the studies were recalculated using a societal perspective and guidelines for economic evaluation. Results. The costs of individual interventions generally increased as a result of the standardization procedure, whereas the effect size decreased. This resulted in increases in the cost-effectiveness ratios for individual studies ranging from 120% to 5600%. Conclusions. The variation between studies in the percentage increase in cost-effectiveness ratios is huge. This means that not following guidelines when calculating cost-effectiveness ratios can result in large errors. Despite the fact that the standardized cost-effectiveness ratios of smoking interventions were higher than the unstandardized cost-effectiveness ratios, interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of smoking are cost-effective.

Key Words: systematic review • CE analysis • smoking cessation

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 25, No. 4, 437-448 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05278431


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Tremblay, D. Cournoyer, and J. O'Loughlin Do the correlates of smoking cessation counseling differ across health professional groups? Nicotine Tob Res, November 1, 2009; 11(11): 1330 - 1338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Lewis, L. Durgan, V. M. Edwards, H. Dixon, C. Whitehead, and R. N. Sykes Can smokers switch from a hospital-based to a community-based stop smoking service? An open-label, randomized trial comparing three referral schemes Nicotine Tob Res, June 1, 2009; 11(6): 756 - 764. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Gordon, N. Graves, A. Hawkes, and E. Eakin A review of the cost-effectiveness of face-to-face behavioural interventions for smoking, physical activity, diet and alcohol Chronic Illness, June 1, 2007; 3(2): 101 - 129. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Brouwer, J. V. Exel, P. V. Baal, and J. Polder Economics and public health: engaged to be happily married! Eur J Public Health, April 1, 2007; 17(2): 122 - 123. [Full Text] [PDF]