IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0110117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Economic Evaluation of a Video- and Text-Based Computer-Tailored Intervention for Smoking Cessation: A Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola E Stanczyk
  • Eline S Smit
  • Daniela N Schulz
  • Hein de Vries
  • Catherine Bolman
  • Jean W M Muris
  • Silvia M A A Evers

Abstract

Background: Although evidence exists for the effectiveness of web-based smoking cessation interventions, information about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is limited. Objective: The study investigated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of two web-based computer-tailored (CT) smoking cessation interventions (video- vs. text-based CT) compared to a control condition that received general text-based advice. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, respondents were allocated to the video-based condition (N = 670), the text-based condition (N = 708) or the control condition (N = 721). Societal costs, smoking status, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-3L) were assessed at baseline, six-and twelve-month follow-up. The incremental costs per abstinent respondent and per QALYs gained were calculated. To account for uncertainty, bootstrapping techniques and sensitivity analyses were carried out. Results: No significant differences were found in the three conditions regarding demographics, baseline values of outcomes and societal costs over the three months prior to baseline. Analyses using prolonged abstinence as outcome measure indicated that from a willingness to pay of €1,500, the video-based intervention was likely to be the most cost-effective treatment, whereas from a willingness to pay of €50,400, the text-based intervention was likely to be the most cost-effective. With regard to cost-utilities, when quality of life was used as outcome measure, the control condition had the highest probability of being the most preferable treatment. Sensitivity analyses yielded comparable results. Conclusion: The video-based CT smoking cessation intervention was the most cost-effective treatment for smoking abstinence after twelve months, varying the willingness to pay per abstinent respondent from €0 up to €80,000. With regard to cost-utility, the control condition seemed to be the most preferable treatment. Probably, more time will be required to assess changes in quality of life. Future studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to investigate whether cost-utility results regarding quality of life may change in the long run. Trial Registration: Nederlands Trial Register NTR3102

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola E Stanczyk & Eline S Smit & Daniela N Schulz & Hein de Vries & Catherine Bolman & Jean W M Muris & Silvia M A A Evers, 2014. "An Economic Evaluation of a Video- and Text-Based Computer-Tailored Intervention for Smoking Cessation: A Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0110117
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110117
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110117&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0110117?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Kalipso Chalkidou & Anthony Culyer & Bhash Naidoo & Peter Littlejohns, 2008. "Cost‐effective public health guidance: asking questions from the decision‐maker's viewpoint," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 441-448, March.
    3. Marike R. C. Hendriks & Maiwenn J. Al & Michel H. C. Bleijlevens & Jolanda C. M. van Haastregt & Harry F. J. M. Crebolder & Jacques Th. M. van Eijk & Silvia M. A. A. Evers, 2013. "Continuous versus Intermittent Data Collection of Health Care Utilization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(8), pages 998-1008, November.
    4. Gregorio, D.I. & Walsh, S.J. & Paturzo, D., 1997. "The effects of occupation-based social position on mortality in a large American cohort," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(9), pages 1472-1475.
    5. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 68-80, April.
    6. Fujian Song & James Raftery & Paul Aveyard & Chris Hyde & Pelham Barton & Nerys Woolacott, 2002. "Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Smoking Cessation: A Literature Review and a Decision Analytic Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 26-37, September.
    7. Glick, Henry A & Doshi, Jalpa A & Sonnad, Seema S & Polsky, Daniel, 2007. "Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198529972.
    8. Park, A-La & McDaid, David & Weiser, Prisca & von Gottberg, Carolin & Becker, Thomas & Kilian, Reinhold, 2013. "Examining the cost effectiveness of interventions to promote the physical health of people with mental health problems: a systematic review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 52157, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nystrand, Camilla & Gebreslassie, Mihretab & Ssegonja, Richard & Feldman, Inna & Sampaio, Filipa, 2021. "A systematic review of economic evaluations of public health interventions targeting alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use and problematic gambling: Using a case study to assess transferability," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 54-74.
    2. Daniëlle N. Zijlstra & Catherine A. W. Bolman & Jean W. M. Muris & Hein de Vries, 2021. "The Usability of an Online Tool to Promote the Use of Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Axel Franzen & Sebastian Mader, 2020. "Can Climate Skeptics Be Convinced? The Effect of Nature Videos on Environmental Concern," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-12, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Helen Dakin & Sarah Wordsworth, 2013. "Cost‐Minimisation Analysis Versus Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis, Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 22-34, January.
    2. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    3. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    4. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    5. Eckermann, Simon & Coelli, Tim, 2013. "Including quality attributes in efficiency measures consistent with net benefit: Creating incentives for evidence based medicine in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 159-168.
    6. Hoch, Jeffrey S. & Blume, Jeffrey D., 2008. "Measuring and illustrating statistical evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 476-495, March.
    7. Casey Quinn, 2005. "Generalisable regression methods for costeffectiveness using copulas," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 05/13, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Lynch, Frances L. & Dickerson, John F. & Pears, Katherine C. & Fisher, Philip A., 2017. "Cost effectiveness of a school readiness intervention for foster children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 63-71.
    9. Nikki McCaffrey & Meera Agar & Janeane Harlum & Jonathon Karnon & David Currow & Simon Eckermann, 2015. "Better Informing Decision Making with Multiple Outcomes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis under Uncertainty in Cost-Disutility Space," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Falk Schwendicke & Hendrik Meyer-Lueckel & Michael Stolpe & Christof Edmund Dörfer & Sebastian Paris, 2014. "Costs and Effectiveness of Treatment Alternatives for Proximal Caries Lesions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, January.
    11. Moreno, Elías & Girón, F.J. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & NegrI´n, M.A., 2010. "Optimal healthcare decisions: Comparing medical treatments on a cost-effectiveness basis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(1), pages 180-187, July.
    12. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 189-198, March.
    13. Jeffrey Hoch & Carolyn Dewa, 2007. "Lessons from Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Mental Health Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 807-816, October.
    14. Sennen Hounton & David Newlands, 2012. "Applying the Net-Benefit Framework for Analyzing and Presenting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Maternal and Newborn Health Intervention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-8, July.
    15. Wildman, John & McMeekin, Peter & Grieve, Eleanor & Briggs, Andrew, 2016. "Economic evaluation of integrated new technologies for health and social care: Suggestions for policy makers, users and evaluators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 141-148.
    16. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    17. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    18. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    19. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    20. G. Sagoo & S. Mohammed & G. Barton & G. Norbury & J. Ahn & C. Ogilvie & M. Kroese, 2015. "Cost Effectiveness of Using Array-CGH for Diagnosing Learning Disability," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 421-432, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0110117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.