Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35679043›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer.

Douglas E Levy, Susan Regan, Giselle K Perez, Alona Muzikansky, Emily R Friedman, Julia Rabin, Nancy A Rigotti, Jamie S Ostroff, Elyse R Park

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. A qualitative study of attitudes and perceptions of smoking cessation medication among patients with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Personal pathways to success: an innovative program to overcome cancer patient barriers to tobacco cessation and promote patient participation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Douglas E LevyMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Susan ReganTobacco Research and Treatment Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Giselle K PerezMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Alona MuzikanskyMGH Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Emily R FriedmanMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Julia RabinDepartment of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Nancy A RigottiMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Jamie S OstroffDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Elyse R ParkMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USUniversity of Cincinnati · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Psychosocial Palliative & Community Research in CancerT32CA009461 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JENNIFER L HAY, Jamie S. Ostroff · 1985 to 2026
$10.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Guidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs. Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers. Exposures: Intensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline). Main Outcomes and Measures: Total costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios). Results: The per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSmoking CessationBehavior TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSmoking

Identifiers

PMID35679043
PMCPMC9185176
OpenAlexW4281979318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.