Objectives. This study was performed to render cost-effectiveness studies on smoking cessation therapies, utilized until now, more comparable and more useful for medical decision making.Methods. The cost-effectiveness ratios reported by the studies were recalculated using a societal perspective and guidelines for economic evaluation.Results. The costs of individual interventions generally increased as a result of the standardization procedure, whereas the effect size decreased. This resulted in increases in the cost-effectiveness ratios for individual studies ranging from 120% to 5600%.Conclusions. The variation between studies in the percentage increase in cost-effectiveness ratios is huge. This means that not following guidelines when calculating cost-effectiveness ratios can result in large errors. Despite the fact that the standardized cost-effectiveness ratios of smoking interventions were higher than the unstandardized cost-effectiveness ratios, interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of smoking are cost-effective.
Uyl-de Groot CA. Uitgangspunten en opzet van onderzoek, in Van kosten tot effecten: een handleiding voor evaluatiestudies in de gezondheidszorg. FFH Rutten, ed. Maarssen (the Netherlands): Elsevier gezondheidszorg; 2000.
2.
Ronckers S, Ament A. Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for Tobacco Dependence: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Washington (DC): The World Bank/The World Health Organisation; 2003.
3.
Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 1997.
4.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 1996.
5.
Croghan IT, Offord KP, Evans R. Cost-effectiveness of treating nicotine dependence: the Mayo Clinic experience. Mayo Clin Proc. 1997;72: 917-924.
6.
Haycox A. A methodology for estimating the costs and benefits of health promotion. Health Promot Int. 1994;9(1): 5-11.
7.
Korhonen HJ, Niemensivu H, Piha T, et al.National TV smoking cessation program and contest in Finland. Prev Med. 1992;21(1): 74-87.
8.
Miller MJ, Draugalis JR, Ortmeier BG, Leischow SJ. A retrospective analysis of the costs and consequences of a tobacco-cessation program for active duty service members. Military Med. 1996;161(7): 420-424.
9.
Nelson DJ, Lasater TM, Niknian M, Carleton RA. Cost-effectiveness of different recruitment strategies for self-help smoking cessation programs. Health Educ Res. 1989;4(1): 79-85.
10.
Ratcliffe J, Cairns J, Platt J. Cost-effectiveness of a mass media led anti-smoking campaign in Scotland. Tobacco Control. 1997;6(2): 104-110.
11.
Secker-Walker RH, Worden JK, Holland RR, Flynn BS, Detsky AS. A mass media programme to prevent smoking among adolescents: cost- and cost-effectiveness. Tobacco Control. 1997;6(3): 207-212.
12.
Akehurst R, Piercy J. Cost-effectiveness of the use of Nicorette nasal spray to assist quitting smoking among heavy smokers. Br J Med Econ. 1994;7(2): 155-184.
13.
Bertera RL, Oehl LK, Telephak JM. Self help versus group approaches to smoking cessaton in the workplace: eighteen-month follow-up and cost analysis. Am J Health Promot. 1990;4(3): 187-192.
14.
Cummings SR, Rubin SM, Oster G. The cost effectiveness of counselling smokers to quit. JAMA. 1989;261: 75-79.
15.
Fiscella K, Franks P. Cost-effectiveness of the transdermal nicotine patch as an adjunct to physicians’ smoking cessation counselling. JAMA. 1996;275(16): 1247-1251.
16.
Krumholz HM, Cohen BJ, Tsevat J, et al.Cost-effectiveness of a smoking cessation program after myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22: 1697-1702.
17.
Meenan RT, Stevens VJ, Hombrook M. Cost-effectiveness of a hospital based smoking cessation intervention. Med Care. 1998;36: 670-678.
18.
Mudde AN, de Vries H, Strecher VJ. Cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation modalities: comparing apples with oranges?Prev Med. 1996;25(6): 708-716.
19.
Oster G, Huse PM, Delea TE, Colditz GA. Cost-effectiveness of nicotine gum as an adjunct to physician’s advice against cigarette smoking. JAMA. 1986;256: 1315-1318.
20.
Plans-Rubió P. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments to reduce cholesterol level, blood pressure and smoking for the prevention of coronary heart disease—evaluation study carried out in Spain. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13: 623-643.
21.
Prathiba BVTS, Phillips C, Campbell IA. A smoking cessation counsellor: should every hospital have one?J R Soc Health. 1998;118(6): 356-359.
22.
Stapleton JA, Russell MAH. Prescription of transdermal nicotine patches for smoking cessation in general practice: evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Lancet. 1999;354: 210-215.
23.
Wasley MA, McNagny SE, Phillips VL, Ahluwalia JS. The cost-effectiveness of the nicotine transdermal patch for smoking cessation. Prev Med. 1997;26(2): 271-273.
24.
Windsor RA, Warner KE, Cutter GR. A cost-effectiveness analysis of self-help smoking cessation methods for pregnant women. Public Health Rep. 1988;103: 83-87.
25.
Altman DG, Flora JA, Fortman SD, Farquhar JW. The cost-effectiveness of three smoking cessation programs. Am J Public Health. 1987;77: 162-165.
26.
Oster G, Colditz GA, Kelly NL. The economic costs of smoking and the benefits of quitting for individual smoking. Prev Med. 1984;13: 377-389.
27.
Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, eds. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en richtlijnprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Amstelveen (the Netherlands): College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2000.
28.
Stapleton JA, Sutherland G, Russell MAH. How much does relapse after one year erode smoking cessation treatments? Long term follow up of randomised trials of nicotine nasal spray. BMJ. 1998;316(7134): 830-831.
