Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a work-place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:To perform an economic evaluation of a work-place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives. DESIGN:A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employer's perspective. SETTING:Sixty-one companies in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 604 tobacco-smoking employees. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR:A 7-week work-place smoking cessation group training programme. The intervention group earned gift vouchers of €350 for 12 months' continuous abstinence. The comparator group received no incentives. MEASUREMENTS:Online questionnaires were administered to assess quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and resource use during the 14-month follow-up period (2-month training period plus 12-month abstinence period). For the CEA the primary outcome measure was carbon monoxide (CO)-validated continuous abstinence; for the CUA the primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) tables were used to determine cost-effectiveness from a life-time perspective. FINDINGS:Of the participants in the intervention group, 41.1% had quit smoking compared with 26.4% in the control group. From a societal perspective with a 14-month follow-up period, the ICER per quitter for an intervention with financial incentives compared with no incentives was €11?546. From an employer's perspective, the ICER was €5686. There was no significant difference in QALYs between the intervention and control group within the 14-month follow-up period. The intervention was dominated by the comparator in the primary analysis at a threshold of €20?000 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, these results were uncertain. A life-time perspective showed an ICER of €1249 (95% confidence interval = €850-2387) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS:Financial incentives may be cost-effective in increasing quitting smoking, particularly from a life-time perspective.

SUBMITTER: van den Brand FA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7027826 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a work-place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives.

van den Brand Floor A FA Nagelhout Gera E GE Winkens Bjorn B Chavannes Niels H NH van Schayck Onno C P OCP Evers Silvia M A A SMAA

Addiction (Abingdon, England) 20191217 3

<h4>Aims</h4>To perform an economic evaluation of a work-place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives.<h4>Design</h4>A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employer's perspective.<h4>Setting</h4>Sixty-one companies in the Netherlands.<h4>Participants</h4>A total of 604 tobacco-smoking employees.<h4>Intervention and comparator</h4>A 7-week work-plac ...[more]

PMID: 31849138

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFinancial incentives effectively increase smoking cessation rates, but it is unclear via which psychological mechanisms incentives influence quit behavior. The current study examines how receiving financial incentives for smoking cessation leads to quitting smoking and investigates several mediators and moderators of that relationship.Aims and methodsThe study sample consisted of 604 tobacco-smoking employees from 61 companies in the Netherlands who completed a baseline and follow-up questionnaire. The current study is a secondary analysis from a cluster randomized trial where employees received smoking cessation group counseling at the workplace. Participants in the intervention group additionally received financial incentives of €350 in total for 12-month continuous smoking abstinence. We used a two-level path analysis to test a model that assesses the effects of financial incentives through smoking cessation program evaluation, medication use, nicotine replacement use, attitudes, self-efficacy, and social influences on quit success. We additionally tested whether an individual's reward responsiveness moderated the influence of incentives on quit success.ResultsThe effect of financial incentives on quit success was mediated by a higher self-efficacy. Financial incentives were also associated with a higher use of cessation medication. A more positive program evaluation was related to higher self-efficacy, more social influence to quit, and more positive attitudes about quitting. The results did not differ significantly by individual reward responsiveness.ConclusionsThe results of the current study suggest that financial incentives may be used to increase medication use and self-efficacy for quitting smoking, which offers an indirect way to increase successful smoking cessation.Implications(1) This is the first study investigating via which psychological pathways financial incentives for quitting smoking can lead to long-term quit success. (2) The results showed a path between financial incentives and a higher likelihood of medication use. Incentives may encourage smokers to use medication in order to increase their chance of quitting smoking and receive the reward. (3) There was a path from financial incentives to quit success via a higher self-efficacy. (4) The effects of financial incentives did not depend on individual reward responsiveness.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of financial incentives dependent on continuous smoking abstinence on smoking cessation and birth outcomes among pregnant smokers.DesignSingle blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingFinancial Incentive for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy (FISCP) trial in 18 maternity wards in France.Participants460 pregnant smokers aged at least 18 years who smoked ≤5 cigarettes/day or ≤3 roll-your-own cigarettes/day and had a pregnancy gestation of <18 weeks were randomised to a financial incentives group (n=231) or a control group (n=229).InterventionsParticipants in the financial incentives group received a voucher equivalent to €20 (£17; $23), and further progressively increasing vouchers at each study visit if they remained abstinent. Participants in the control group received no financial incentive for abstinence. All participants received a €20 show-up fee at each of six visits.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was continuous smoking abstinence from the first post-quit date visit to visit 6, before delivery. Secondary outcomes in the mothers were point prevalence abstinence, time to smoking relapse, withdrawal symptoms, blood pressure, and alcohol and cannabis use in past 30 days. Secondary outcomes in the babies were gestational age at birth, birth characteristics (birth weight, length, head circumference, Apgar score), and a poor neonatal outcome-a composite measure of transfer to the neonatal unit, congenital malformation, convulsions, or perinatal death.ResultsMean age was 29 years. In the financial incentives and control groups, respectively, 137 (59%) and 148 (65%) were employed, 163 (71%) and 171 (75%) were in a relationship, and 41 (18%) and 31 (13%) were married. The participants had smoked a median of 60 cigarettes in the past seven days. The continuous abstinence rate was significantly higher in the financial incentives group (16%, 38/231) than control group (7%, 17/229): odds ratio 2.45 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 4.49), P=0.004). The point prevalence abstinence rate was higher (4.61, 1.41 to 15.01, P=0.011), the median time to relapse was longer (visit 5 (interquartile range 3-6) and visit 4 (3-6), P<0.001)), and craving for tobacco was lower (β=-1.81, 95% confidence interval -3.55 to -0.08, P=0.04) in the financial incentives group than control group. Financial incentives were associated with a 7% reduction in the risk of a poor neonatal outcome: 4 babies (2%) in the financial incentives group and 18 babies (9%) in the control group: mean difference 14 (95% confidence interval 5 to 23), P=0.003. Post hoc analyses suggested that more babies in the financial incentives group had birth weights ≥2500 g than in the control group: unadjusted odds ratio 1.95 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 3.85), P=0.055; sex adjusted odds ratio 2.05 (1.03 to 4.10), P=0.041; and sex and prematurity adjusted odds ratio 2.06 (0.90 to 4.71), P=0.086. As these are post hoc analyses, the results should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsFinancial incentives to reward smoking abstinence compared with no financial incentives were associated with an increased abstinence rate in pregnant smokers. Financial incentives dependent on smoking abstinence could be implemented as a safe and effective intervention to help pregnant smokers quit smoking.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02606227.

Project description:Cigarette smoking during pregnancy increases risk for pregnancy complications, growth restriction, and other adverse health outcomes. The most effective intervention for reducing smoking during pregnancy is financial incentives contingent on biochemically-verified smoking abstinence. The present study examined the efficacy of a smartphone-based intervention whereby smoking monitoring and incentive delivery occurred remotely using a mobile app. If efficacious, this remote intervention would allow pregnant women residing in geographically remote areas to benefit from incentives-based cessation interventions. Sixty U.S. pregnant smokers were recruited between May 2018 to May 2019 via obstetrical clinics, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) offices, and Facebook. Participants were assigned sequentially to one of two treatments: best practices alone (N = 30) or best practices plus financial incentives (N = 30). Outcomes were analyzed using repeated measures analysis based on generalized estimating equations (GEE). Seven-day point prevalence abstinence rates were greater in the incentives versus best practices arms early- (46.7% vs 20.0%, OR = 3.50, 95%CI = 1.11,11.02) and late-antepartum (36.7% vs 13.3%, OR = 3.76, 95%CI = 1.04,13.65), and four- (36.7% vs 10.0%, OR = 5.21, 95%CI = 1.28,21.24) and eight-weeks postpartum (40.0% vs 6.7%, OR = 9.33, 95%CI = 1.87,46.68), although not at the 12- (23.3% vs 10.0%, OR = 2.74, 95%CI = 0.63,11.82) or 24-week (20.0% vs 6.7%, OR = 3.50, 95%CI = 0.65,18.98) postpartum assessments likely due to this pilot study being underpowered for discerning differences at the later assessments, especially 24-weeks postpartum which was three months after treatment completion. These results support the efficacy of this remote, incentives-based intervention for pregnant smokers. Further research evaluating its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a well-powered, randomized controlled trial appears warranted.

Project description:ImportanceSocioeconomically disadvantaged individuals (ie, those with low socioeconomic status [SES]) have difficulty quitting smoking and may benefit from incentive-based cessation interventions.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of incentivizing smoking abstinence on smoking cessation among adults with low SES.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used a 2-group randomized clinical trial design. Data collection occurred between January 30, 2017, and February 7, 2022. Participants included adults with low SES who were willing to undergo smoking cessation treatment. Data were analyzed from April 18, 2023, to April 19, 2024.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to usual care (UC) for smoking cessation (counseling plus pharmacotherapy) or UC plus abstinence-contingent financial incentives (UC plus FI).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 26 weeks after the quit date. Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 7-day PPA at earlier follow-ups, 30-day PPA at 12 and 26 weeks, repeated 7-day PPA, and continuous abstinence. Multiple approaches were employed to handle missing outcomes at follow-up, including categorizing missing data as smoking (primary), complete case analysis, and multiple imputation.ResultsThe 320 participants had a mean (SD) age of 48.9 (11.6) and were predominantly female (202 [63.1%]); 82 (25.6%) were Black, 15 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 200 (62.5%) were White; and 146 (45.6%) participated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 161 were randomized to UC and 159 were randomized to UC plus FI. After covariate adjustment with missing data treated as smoking, assignment to UC plus FI was associated with a greater likelihood of 7-day PPA at the 4-week (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.11 [95% CI, 1.81-5.34]), 8-week (AOR, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.62-5.31]), and 12-week (AOR, 3.18 [95% CI, 1.70-5.95]) follow-ups, but not at the 26-week follow-up (22 [13.8%] vs 14 [8.7%] abstinent; AOR, 1.79 [95% CI, 0.85-3.80]). However, the association of group assignment with smoking cessation reached statistical significance at all follow-ups, including 26 weeks, with multiple imputation (37.37 [23.5%] in the UC plus FI group vs 19.48 [12.1%] in the UC group were abstinent; AOR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.14-4.63]). Repeated-measures analyses indicated that participants in the UC plus FI group were significantly more likely to achieve PPA across assessments through 26 weeks with all missing data estimation methods. Other secondary cessation outcomes also showed comparable patterns across estimation methods. Participants earned a mean (SD) of $72 ($90) (of $250 possible) in abstinence-contingent incentives. Participation during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the likelihood of cessation across assessments.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, incentivizing smoking cessation did not increase cessation at 26 weeks when missing data were treated as smoking; however, the UC plus FI group had greater odds of quitting at follow-ups through 12 weeks. Cessation rates were higher for the UC plus FI group at all follow-ups through 26 weeks when multiple imputation was used to estimate missing outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02737566.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a work-place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a work-place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets