Trial reportNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2012
Reducing smoking in adolescents: cost-effectiveness results from the cluster randomized ASSIST (A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial).
Trial report in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people.BMC health services research · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of tobacco control policies and programmes targeting adolescents: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2018Pooled it
- Tobacco cessation interventions for young people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- School-based programmes for preventing smoking.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Active Children Through Individual Vouchers Evaluation: A Mixed-Method RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of repeated implementation intention formation on adolescent smoking initiation: A cluster randomized controlled trial.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2019Trial
- Active children through individual vouchers - evaluation (ACTIVE): protocol for a mixed method randomised control trial to increase physical activity levels in teenagers.BMC public health · 2017Trial
- Trial
- "Everybody's problem but nobody's problem": Qualitative study on integrating smoking cessation and mental health services in Singapore.PloS one · 2025Article
- The cost-effectiveness of school-based interventions for chronic diseases: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Review
- Exploring Naturalistic Diffusion of an Evidence-Based Mental Health Intervention across Peer Networks of Youth in Sierra Leone.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The Outcomes of an Interventional Oral Health Program on Dental Students' Oral Hygiene.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Article
- Cost of youth tobacco-control policies in seven European countries.European journal of public health · 2020Article
- Diffusion and spillover effects of an evidence-based mental health intervention among peers and caregivers of high risk youth in Sierra Leone: study protocol.BMC psychiatry · 2020Article
- Local Marketing of a National Texting-Based Smoking Cessation Program: Is It Cost Effective?Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Implementation of a peer-led school based smoking prevention programme: a mixed methods process evaluation.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSchool-based smoking prevention programmes can be effective, but evidence on cost-effectiveness is lacking. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a school-based "peer-led" intervention.
methodsWe evaluated the ASSIST (A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial) programme in a cluster randomized controlled trial. The ASSIST programme trained students to act as peer supporters during informal interactions to encourage their peers not to smoke. Fifty-nine secondary schools in England and Wales were randomized to receive the ASSIST programme or usual smoking education. Ten thousand seven hundred and thirty students aged 12-13 years attended participating schools. Previous work has demonstrated that the ASSIST programme achieved a 2.1% (95% CI = 0%-4.2%) reduction in smoking prevalence. We evaluated the public sector cost, prevalence of weekly smoking, and cost per additional student not smoking at 24 months.
resultsThe ASSIST programme cost of £32 (95% CI = £29.70-£33.80) per student. The incremental cost per student not smoking at 2 years was £1,500 (95% CI = £669-£9,947). Students in intervention schools were less likely to believe that they would be a smoker at age 16 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.66-0.96).
conclusionsA peer-led intervention reduced smoking among adolescents at a modest cost. The intervention is cost-effective under realistic assumptions regarding the extent to which reductions in adolescent smoking lead to lower smoking prevalence and/or earlier smoking cessation in adulthood. The annual cost of extending the intervention to Year 8 students in all U.K. schools would be in the region of £38 million and could result in 20,400 fewer adolescent smokers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.