ArticlePLOS digital health2022
An economic evaluation of an online computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention that includes message frame-tailoring: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Designing Patient-Friendly Messages: Tutorial on Applying Human-Centered, Self-Determination Theory With AI Considerations.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Toward Tailored and Targeted Communication for the Promotion of Firearm Safety: A Qualitative Study With Firearm Retailers.Psychological reports · 2025Article
- Alerta Cannabis: A Tailored-Computer Web-Based Program for the Prevention of Cannabis Use in Adolescents: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.BMC nursing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence of economic evaluations of behaviour change interventions is scarce, but needed to guide policy makers' decision-making. This study economically evaluated 4 versions of an innovative online computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention. The economic evaluation from a societal perspective was embedded in a randomized controlled trial among 532 smokers using a 2 (message frame-tailoring, i.e. how messages are presented: autonomy-supportive vs controlling) x 2 (content-tailoring, i.e. what content is presented: tailored vs. generic) design. Both kinds of tailoring, content-tailoring and message frame-tailoring, were based on a set of questions asked at baseline. Self-reported costs, prolonged smoking abstinence (cost-effectiveness) and quality of life (cost-utility) were assessed during a 6-month-follow-up. For cost-effectiveness analysis, costs per abstinent smoker were calculated. For cost-utility analysis, costs per QALY (i.e. quality-adjusted life year) gained were calculated. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €20.000 was used. Bootstrapping and sensitivity analysis were conducted. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that up to a WTP of €2.000, the combination of message frame- and content-tailoring dominated all study groups. From a WTP of €2.005, the content-tailored group dominated all study groups. Cost-utility analysis revealed that the combination of message frame-tailoring and content-tailoring had the highest probability of being the most efficient study group at all levels of the WTP. The combination of message frame-tailoring and content-tailoring in online smoking cessation programmes seemed to have high potential for cost-effectiveness (smoking abstinence) and cost-utility (quality of life), thus providing good value for money. Yet, when the WTP for each abstinent smoker is high (i.e., €2.005 or higher), the addition of message frame-tailoring might not be worth the effort and content-tailoring only is preferred.
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.