Dataset Information

Protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The short-term economic benefit of embedding best practice tobacco dependence treatment (TDT) into healthcare services prior to surgery across different populations and jurisdictions is largely unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the cost-effectiveness of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications compared with usual care. The results will provide hospital managers, clinicians, healthcare professionals and policymakers with a critical summary of the economic evidence on providing TDT routinely before surgery, aiding the development and dissemination of unified, best practice guidelines, that is, implementation of article 14 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Methods and analysis

A comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature will be conducted from database inception until 23 June 2021 (Cochrane, Econlit, Embase, Health Technology Assessment, Medline Complete, Scopus). Published, English-language articles describing economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications will be included. One researcher will complete the searches and two researchers will independently screen results for eligible studies. Any disagreement will be resolved by the third researcher. A narrative summary of included studies will be provided. Study characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results will be extracted by one reviewer and descriptive analyses will be undertaken. A second reviewer will review data extracted for accuracy from 10% of the included studies. Reporting and methodological quality of the included studies will be evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument checklist, respectively.

Ethics and dissemination

This research does not require ethics approval because the study is a planned systematic review of published literature. Findings will be presented at health economic, public health and tobacco control conferences, published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via social media.

Trial registration number

CRD42021257740.

SUBMITTER: McCaffrey N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8596037 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSmoking cessation and relapse prevention during and after pregnancy reduces the risk of adverse maternal and infant health outcomes, but the economic evaluations of such programs have not been systematically reviewed. This study aims to critically assess economic evaluations of smoking cessation and relapse prevention programs for pregnant women.MethodsAll relevant English-language articles were identified using PubMed (January 1966-2003), the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and reference lists of key articles. Economic evaluations of smoking cessation and relapse prevention among pregnant women were reviewed. Fifty-one articles were retrieved, and eight articles were included and evaluated. A single reviewer extracted methodological details, study designs, and outcomes into summary tables. All studies were reviewed, and study quality was judged using the criteria recommended by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist for economic evaluations.ResultsThe search retrieved 51 studies. No incremental cost-effectiveness studies or cost-utility studies were found. A narrative synthesis was conducted on the eight studies thatmet the inclusion criteria. Roughly one-third employed cost-benefit analyses (CBA). Those conducting CBA have found favorable benefit-cost ratios of up to 3:1; for every dollar invested $3 are saved in downstream health-related costs.ConclusionsCBA suggests favorable cost-benefit ratios for smoking cessation among pregnant women, although currently available economic evaluations of smoking cessation and relapse prevention programs for pregnant women provide limited evidence on cost-effectiveness to determine optimal resource allocation strategies. Although none of these studies had been performed in accordance with Panel recommendations or BMJ guidelines, they are, however, embryonic elements of a more systematic framework. Existing analyses suggest that the return on investment will far outweigh the costs for this critical population. There is significant potential to improve the quality of economic evaluations of such programs; therefore, additional analyses are needed. The article concludes with ideas on how to design and conduct an economic evaluation of such programs in accordance with accepted quality standards.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.Selection criteriaRandomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Main resultsFifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.Authors' conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

Project description:IntroductionIn the context of family planning and reproductive health, a gender-transformative approach involves helping communities understand and challenge the social norms that perpetuate inequalities between men and women, and improving women's access to key services.The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesise the best available evidence on economic evaluations of gender transformative interventions targeted at preventing unintended pregnancy and promoting sexual health in adolescents, assess the methodological quality of the economic evaluation studies and identify gaps in the evidence.Methods and analysisWe will search the following bibliographic databases for economic evaluations that meet our selection criteria; PubMed, Cochrane, National Health Service EE database, SCOPUS, CINHAL, Web of Science and Paediatric EE Database. We will additionally conduct a grey literature search. The search will be conducted for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2021. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment. We will consider the following outcomes from economic evaluations; relative resource use, cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental net benefit ratio or net present value, quality-adjusted life-years and disability-adjusted life-years. Quality assessment will be conducted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist. Results will be reported using summary tables and narratively. Attempts will be made to use the Joanna Briggs Institute three-by-three dominance ranking matrix tool to compare relevant cost-effectiveness studies.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required because the review will not use individual patient data, instead publicly available economic evaluation research studies will be used. However, an ethics exemption was obtained from the Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committee, Reference No: X21/05/012. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant scientific conference.Prospero registration numberCRD42021264698.

Project description:IntroductionScaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions.Methods and analysisUsing the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.