Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/15300
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHuber, M-
dc.contributor.authorPräger, M-
dc.contributor.authorCoyle, K-
dc.contributor.authorCoyle, D-
dc.contributor.authorLester-George, A-
dc.contributor.authorTrapero-Bertran, M-
dc.contributor.authorNemeth, B-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, KL-
dc.contributor.authorStark, R-
dc.contributor.authorVogl, M-
dc.contributor.authorPokhrel, S-
dc.contributor.authorLeidl, R-
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-25T13:07:21Z-
dc.date.available2017-10-25T13:07:21Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationAddiction,(2017)en_US
dc.identifier.issn0965-2140-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/15300-
dc.description.abstractAims: To evaluate costs, effects and cost effectiveness of increased reach of specific smoking cessation interventions in Germany. Design: A Markov-based state transition return on investment model (EQUIPTMOD) was used to evaluate current smoking cessation interventions as well as two prospective investment scenarios. A healthcare perspective (extended to include out-of-pocket payments) with lifetime horizon was considered. A probabilistic analysis was used to assess uncertainty around predicted estimates. Setting: Germany. Participants: Cohort of current smoking population (18+ years) in Germany. Interventions: Interventions included group-based behavioral support, financial incentive programs and varenicline. For Prospective Scenario 1 the reach of group-based behavioral support, financial incentive program and varenicline was increased by 1% of yearly quit attempts (=57,915 quit attempts), while Prospective Scenario 2 represented a higher reach mirroring the levels observed in England. Measurements: EQUIPTMOD considered reach, intervention cost, number of quitters, QALYs gained, cost effectiveness and return on investment. Findings: The highest returns through reduction in smoking-related healthcare costs were seen for the financial incentive program (€2.71 per €1 invested), followed by that of group-based behavioral support (€1.63 per €1 invested), compared with no interventions. Varenicline had lower returns (€1.02 per €1 invested) than the other two interventions. At the population level, Prospective Scenario 1 led to 15,034 QALYs gained and €27 million cost-savings, compared with Current Investment. Intervention effects and reach contributed most to the uncertainty around the return-on-investment estimates. At a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of only €5,000, the probability of being cost effective is around 75% for Prospective Scenario 1. Conclusions Increasing the reach of group-based behavioral support, financial incentives and varenicline for smoking cessation by just 1% of current annual quit attempts provides a strategy to German policy makers that improves the population’s health outcomes and that may be considered cost-effective.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWILEYen_US
dc.subjectSmoking cessationen_US
dc.subjectGermanyen_US
dc.subjectCost effectivenessen_US
dc.subjectBehavioral supporten_US
dc.subjectPharmacotherapyen_US
dc.subjectPolicyen_US
dc.subjectEQUIPTMODen_US
dc.titleCost-effectiveness of increasing the reach of smoking cessation interventions in Germany: results from the EQUIPTMODen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.relation.isPartOfAddiction-
pubs.publication-statusAccepted-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Health Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf575.96 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.