ArticleBMJ open2019
Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Breaking the habit: a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological and combined interventions for smoking cessation in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Pooled it
- Identifying best modelling practices for tobacco control policy simulations: a systematic review and a novel quality assessment framework.Tobacco control · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Randomized Trial in the Lung Cancer Screening Setting.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Trial
- Markov model- Quantifying outlook towards success of tobacco cessation counseling.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Review
- Smoking Cessation therapy is a cost-effective intervention to avoid tooth loss in Brazilian subjects with periodontitis: an economic evaluation.BMC oral health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a high-intensity and a low-intensity smoking cessation treatment programme (HIT and LIT) using long-term follow-up effectiveness data and to validate the cost-effectiveness results based on short-term follow-up. DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a randomised controlled trial as numbers of abstinent participants after 1 and 5-8 years of follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective using a Markov model by estimating future disease-related costs (in Euro (€) 2018) and health effects (in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). Programmes were explicitly compared in an incremental analysis, and the results were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
settingThe study was conducted in dental clinics in Sweden.
participants294 smokers aged 19-71 years were included in the study.
interventionsBehaviour therapy, coaching and pharmacological advice (HIT) was compared with one counselling session introducing a conventional self-help programme (LIT).
resultsThe more costly HIT led to higher number of 6-month continuous abstinent participants after 1 year and higher number of sustained abstinent participants after 5-8 years, which translates into larger societal costs avoided and health gains than LIT. The incremental cost/QALY of HIT compared with LIT amounted to €918 and €3786 using short-term and long-term effectiveness, respectively, which is considered very cost-effective in Sweden.
conclusionCEA favours the more costly HIT if decision makers are willing to spend at least €4000/QALY for tobacco cessation treatment.
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.