ArticleBritish journal of cancer2024
Cost-effectiveness of point of care smoking cessation interventions in oncology clinics.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic and health impact of integrating smoking cessation services into NHS cancer care pathways in England: a modelling study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Future Inpatient Cost Burden of Laryngeal Cancer in Romania: Aging, Residence, and Prevention Scenarios in a Nationwide Ecological Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Community-based Quality Improvement Smoking Cessation Program Using the Ottawa Model During COVID-19.CJC open · 2026Article
- Understanding barriers and identifying solutions for smoking cessation in primary care: survey results informed by an integrated knowledge translation approach in British Columbia, Canada.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Treating tobacco dependency in cancer care: essential, cost-effective, and feasible, yet overlooked.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe examined the cost-effectiveness of providing systematic smoking cessation interventions to oncology patients at point-of-care.
methodsA decision analytic model was completed from the healthcare payer's perspective and included all incident cancer cases involving patients who smoke in New Brunswick, Canada (n = 1040), cancer site stratifications, and risks of mortality, continued smoking, and cancer treatment failure over one year. Usual care (no cessation support) was compared to the standard Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) intervention, and to OMSC plus unlimited cost-free stop smoking medication (OMSC + SSM), including nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, or bupropion. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per quit (ICQ) and incremental cost per cancer treatment failure avoided (ICTFA).
resultsThe ICQ was $C143 and ICTFA $C1193 for standard OMSC. The ICQ was $C503 and ICTFA was $C5952 for OMSC + SSM. The number needed to treat (NNT) to produce one quit was 9 for standard OMSC and 4 for OMSC + SSM, and the NNT to avoid one first-line treatment failure was 78 for OMSC and 45 for OMSC + SSM. Both were cost-effective in 100% of 1000 simulations.
conclusionsGiven the high clinical benefits and low incremental costs, systematic smoking cessation interventions should be a standard component of first-line cancer 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.