Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10168094›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1997

Cost effectiveness of smoking-cessation therapies. Interpretation of the evidence-and implications for coverage.

K E Warner

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00297700 (Implementing Tobacco Control in Dental Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00297700 phase3unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2004, after this paper: background citation

Implementing Tobacco Control in Dental Practice

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)Ran2004 to 2007Enrolled2,800ConditionsSmokingArmsActive referral
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Smoking, Mental Illness, and Public Health.Annual review of public health · 2017
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.Current cardiology reports · 2014
    Review
  16. Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012
    Article
  17. The effect of removing cost as a barrier to treatment initiation with outpatient tobacco dependence clinics among emergency department patients.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2011
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

K E WarnerDepartment of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, USA. kwarner@umich.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smoking cessation has been called the 'gold standard' of healthcare cost effectiveness, producing additional years of life at costs that are well below those estimated for a wide range of healthcare interventions. However, the most effective approaches to smoking cessation are not the most cost effective. As we move from the least resource-intensive interventions (e.g distribution of self-help cessation guides) to those that are most resource-intensive (e.g. medical treatments, including the use of nicotine replacement products), both cost and effectiveness increase, but cost increases more rapidly. Nevertheless, it must be considered that different interventions are effective for different people. Resource-intensive treatments may actually be far more cost effective for many people who may not respond to less-intensive interventions. A considered review of the evidence recommends support of all of the major forms of smoking-cessation intervention; even the most expensive are highly cost effective compared with the majority of medical practices that have been studied. Despite their cost effectiveness, smoking-cessation services are not covered by many healthcare providers. This review concludes that such coverage is warranted, primarily because much less cost-effective secondary and tertiary care is covered, encouraging its utilisation, rather than primary prevention. However, the argument favouring coverage is not as clear-cut as might be assumed. Coverage of smoking cessation amounts to a direct subsidy for smokers who want to quit. It is not health 'insurance' in the theoretical meaning of the term. The distinction is important as healthcare systems contemplate future coverage of a range of behaviour-related preventive interventions.

Indexed as

AnimalsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsHumansInsurance, Pharmaceutical ServicesSmoking Cessation

Identifiers

PMID10168094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.