ArticleCancer medicine2018
Economic evaluation of smoking cessation in Ontario's regional cancer programs.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of cancer treatment protocols in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Examining the Association between Abstinence from Smoking and Healthcare Costs among Patients with Cancer.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024Article
- Lessons from Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Programs for Cancer Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Mixed-methods economic evaluation of the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Identifying Best Implementation Practices for Smoking Cessation in Complex Cancer Settings.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- The cost of failed first-line cancer treatment related to continued smoking in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2020Article
- Association of a Comprehensive Smoking Cessation Program With Smoking Abstinence Among Patients With Cancer.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Implementation of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Promote Workers Global Health Status in the Oil Industry, Brazil (2006-2015).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Implementing smoking cessation within cancer treatment centres and potential economic impacts.Translational lung cancer research · 2019Article
- Mitigating the adverse health effects and costs associated with smoking after a cancer diagnosis.Translational lung cancer research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quitting smoking after a diagnosis of cancer results in greater response to treatment and decreased risk of disease recurrence and second primary cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of two smoking cessation approaches: the current basic smoking cessation program consisting of screening for tobacco use, advice, and referral; and a best practice smoking cessation program that includes the current basic program with the addition of pharmacological therapy, counseling, and follow-up. A Markov model was constructed that followed 65-year-old smokers with cancer over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities and mortality estimates were obtained from the published literature. Costs were obtained from standard costing sources in Ontario and reports. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter uncertainties. For smokers with cancer, the best practice smoking cessation program was more effective and more costly than the basic smoking cessation program. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the best practice smoking cessation program compared to the basic smoking cessation program was $3367 per QALY gained and $5050 per LY gained for males, and $2050 per QALY gained and $4100 per LY gained for females. Results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of mortality for former and current smokers, the probability of quitting smoking through participation in the program and smoking-attributable costs. The study results suggested that a best practice smoking cessation program could be a cost-effective option. These findings can support and guide implementation of smoking cessation programs.
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.