ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2022
Investigating the cost-effectiveness of three cessation interventions on a national scale using the Economics of Smoking in Pregnancy (ESIP) decision analytical model.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Financial Rewards for Smoking Cessation During Pregnancy and Birth Weight: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- A scoping review of costing methodologies used to assess interventions for underserved pregnant people and new parents.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Investigating the cost-effectiveness of three cessation interventions on a national scale using the Economics of Smoking in Pregnancy (ESIP) decision analytical model.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2022Article
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
aimTo measure the cost-effectiveness of adding text message (TMB), exercise (EB) and abstinent-contingent financial incentive-based (CFIB) stop smoking interventions to standard smoking cessation support for pregnant women in England.
designModelling cost-effectiveness outcomes by separately adding three cessation interventions to standard cessation care offered to pregnant women in England. English National Health Service Stop Smoking Services (NHS SSS) statistics from 2019 to 2020 were used for estimating the base quit rate. Intervention effectiveness and cost data for interventions were taken from trial reports. Cost-effectiveness was derived using the economics of smoking in pregnancy (ESIP) model from a health service and personal social services perspective. Interventions were compared with each other as well as against standard cessation care.
settingEnglish NHS SSS. PARTICIPANTS/CASES: A total of 13 799 pregnant women who accessed NHS SSS. Interventions and comparator; comparator: standard stop smoking support comprising behavioural intervention and an offer of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Three additive interventions were TMB, EB and CFIB. MEASUREMENTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-years gained for both mothers and offspring over their life-times; return on investment (ROI); and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).
findingsThe addition of any of the interventions compared with standard care alone was preferred, but only significant for the addition of CFIB, with the CEAC suggesting an at least 90% chance of being favoured to standard care alone. When compared against each other CFIB appeared to yield the largest returns, but this was not significant. The estimated ROI for CFIB was £2 [95% confidence interval (CI) = £1-3] in health-care savings for every £1 spent by the NHS on the cessation intervention.
conclusionsFor a health system which currently provides behavioural support and an offer of nicotine replacement therapy as standard stop smoking support for pregnant women, the greatest economic gains would be provided by operating an abstinent-contingent financial incentives scheme alongside this.
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.