Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19370599›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment.

Ayalu A Reda, Janneke Kaper, Hurmuz Fikrelter, Johan L Severens, Constant Paul van Schayck

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Treatment of tobacco dependence.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2011
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Governments, pay for smoking cessation.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2010
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Interest in treatments to stop smoking.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ayalu A RedaCare and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P. Debyeplein 1, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht, Netherlands, 6200 MD.
Janneke Kaper
Hurmuz Fikrelter
Johan L Severens
Constant Paul van Schayck

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe hypothesized that provision of financial assistance for smokers trying to quit, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts.

objectivesThe primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs of providing or using smoking cessation treatment by health care financing interventions on abstinence from smoking and utilization of smoking cessation treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group specialized register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2008; MEDLINE (from January 1966 to August 2008) and EMBASE (from January 1980 to August 2008) to identify trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their health care providers or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Rate ratios (RR) were calculated for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. We included economic evaluations when a study presented the costs and effects of two or more alternatives. MAIN

resultsWe found nine trials involving financial interventions directed at smokers and two studies directed at health care providers.There was a statistically significant favourable effect of full financial interventions directed at smokers on continuous abstinence compared to no interventions with a risk ratio (RR) of 4.38 (95% CI 1.94 to 9.87). There was also a significant effect of full financial interventions when compared to no interventions on the number of participants making a quit attempt (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32; N = 3). There was a significant effect of financial interventions directed at health care providers in increasing the utilization of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation (RR 1.33; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.77). Comparison of full benefit with partial or no benefit resulted in costs per additional quitter ranging from $260 to $1453. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFull financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions could increase the proportion quitting, quit attempts and utilization of pharmacotherapy by smokers. Although the absolute differences were small the costs per additional quitter were low. The methodological qualities of the included studies need to be taken into consideration in interpreting the conclusions.

Indexed as

Financing, GovernmentInsurance CoverageCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmokingSmoking CessationTobacco Use CessationTobacco Use Disorder

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.