在急诊科提供戒烟电子烟启动包的成本效用分析:随机对照试验的经济评估。

IF 5.2 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Addiction Pub Date : 2024-10-31 DOI:10.1111/add.16698
Jinshuo Li, Qi Wu, Steve Parrott, Ian Pope, Lucy V Clark, Allan Clark, Emma Ward, Pippa Belderson, Susan Stirling, Timothy J Coats, Linda Bauld, Richard Holland, Sarah Gentry, Sanjay Agrawal, Benjamin M Bloom, Adrian Boyle, Alasdair Gray, M Geraint Morris, Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Caitlin Notley
{"title":"在急诊科提供戒烟电子烟启动包的成本效用分析:随机对照试验的经济评估。","authors":"Jinshuo Li, Qi Wu, Steve Parrott, Ian Pope, Lucy V Clark, Allan Clark, Emma Ward, Pippa Belderson, Susan Stirling, Timothy J Coats, Linda Bauld, Richard Holland, Sarah Gentry, Sanjay Agrawal, Benjamin M Bloom, Adrian Boyle, Alasdair Gray, M Geraint Morris, Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Caitlin Notley","doi":"10.1111/add.16698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess the cost-effectiveness of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in Emergency Department (COSTED) intervention compared with signposting to local stop smoking service (SSS) from the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective.</p><p><strong>Design, setting and participants: </strong>This was a two-group, multi-centre, pragmatic, individually randomized controlled trial set in six Emergency Departments (EDs) in urban and rural areas in the United Kingdom. Adult (≥ 18 years) daily smokers (at least one cigarette or equivalent per day) but not daily e-cigarette users, with carbon monoxide reading ≥ 8 parts per million, attending the ED (n = 972) were included. The intervention consisted of provision of an e-cigarette starter kit plus brief smoking cessation advice and referral to a local SSS. Control was an information card on how to access local SSS.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Intervention costs included costs of training and delivery. Control costs included costs of printing information cards. Costs of smoking cessation and health-care services were estimated based on quantities reported by participants and unit costs extracted from secondary sources. The effects were measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from EQ-5D-5L. Other outcomes were smoking cessation measures. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was calculated by dividing the difference in costs by the difference in QALYs between groups.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The mean intervention costs were £48 [standard error (SE) = £0] per participant and the mean control costs were £0.2 (SE = £0) per participant. Using regression estimates, total costs were £31 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£341 to £283] higher and 6-month QALYs were 0.004 (95% CI = -0.004 to 0.014) higher in the intervention group than in the control group. The ICER was calculated at £7750 (probability of cost-effective at range £20 000-30 000: 72.2-76.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The UK Cessation of Smoking Trial in Emergency Department (COSTED) intervention (provision of an e-cigarette starter kit plus brief smoking cessation advice) was cost-effective compared with signposting to local stop smoking services under the current recommendations of the maximum acceptable thresholds.</p>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-utility analysis of provision of e-cigarette starter kits for smoking cessation in emergency departments: An economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Jinshuo Li, Qi Wu, Steve Parrott, Ian Pope, Lucy V Clark, Allan Clark, Emma Ward, Pippa Belderson, Susan Stirling, Timothy J Coats, Linda Bauld, Richard Holland, Sarah Gentry, Sanjay Agrawal, Benjamin M Bloom, Adrian Boyle, Alasdair Gray, M Geraint Morris, Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Caitlin Notley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/add.16698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess the cost-effectiveness of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in Emergency Department (COSTED) intervention compared with signposting to local stop smoking service (SSS) from the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective.</p><p><strong>Design, setting and participants: </strong>This was a two-group, multi-centre, pragmatic, individually randomized controlled trial set in six Emergency Departments (EDs) in urban and rural areas in the United Kingdom. Adult (≥ 18 years) daily smokers (at least one cigarette or equivalent per day) but not daily e-cigarette users, with carbon monoxide reading ≥ 8 parts per million, attending the ED (n = 972) were included. The intervention consisted of provision of an e-cigarette starter kit plus brief smoking cessation advice and referral to a local SSS. Control was an information card on how to access local SSS.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Intervention costs included costs of training and delivery. Control costs included costs of printing information cards. Costs of smoking cessation and health-care services were estimated based on quantities reported by participants and unit costs extracted from secondary sources. The effects were measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from EQ-5D-5L. Other outcomes were smoking cessation measures. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was calculated by dividing the difference in costs by the difference in QALYs between groups.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The mean intervention costs were £48 [standard error (SE) = £0] per participant and the mean control costs were £0.2 (SE = £0) per participant. Using regression estimates, total costs were £31 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£341 to £283] higher and 6-month QALYs were 0.004 (95% CI = -0.004 to 0.014) higher in the intervention group than in the control group. The ICER was calculated at £7750 (probability of cost-effective at range £20 000-30 000: 72.2-76.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The UK Cessation of Smoking Trial in Emergency Department (COSTED) intervention (provision of an e-cigarette starter kit plus brief smoking cessation advice) was cost-effective compared with signposting to local stop smoking services under the current recommendations of the maximum acceptable thresholds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Addiction\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Addiction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16698\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16698","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:从国家卫生服务系统(NHS)和个人社会服务系统(PSS)的角度,评估急诊科戒烟试验(COSTED)干预与当地戒烟服务(SSS)推荐的成本效益比较:这是一项两组、多中心、务实、单独随机对照试验,在英国城市和农村地区的六个急诊科进行。试验对象包括每天吸烟(每天至少一支香烟或同等数量的香烟)但非每天使用电子烟、一氧化碳读数≥百万分之 8 的成人(≥ 18 岁)急诊患者(n = 972)。干预措施包括提供电子烟入门套件和简短的戒烟建议,并将患者转介到当地的戒烟服务机构。对照组为一张信息卡,说明如何获得当地的 SSS:干预成本包括培训和交付成本。对照组成本包括印制信息卡的成本。戒烟和医疗保健服务的成本是根据参与者报告的数量和从二手资料中提取的单位成本估算的。效果以 EQ-5D-5L 得出的质量调整生命年(QALYs)来衡量。其他结果为戒烟措施。主要结果是增量成本效益比(ICER),计算方法是将成本差异除以组间 QALYs 的差异:平均干预成本为每位参与者 48 英镑 [标准误差 (SE) = 0 英镑],平均对照成本为每位参与者 0.2 英镑 (SE = 0 英镑)。通过回归估算,干预组的总成本比对照组高 31 英镑[95% 置信区间 (CI) = -341 至 283 英镑],6 个月的 QALY 比对照组高 0.004 (95% CI = -0.004 至 0.014)。计算得出的ICER为7750英镑(在20000-30000英镑范围内具有成本效益的概率:72.2%-76.5%):英国急诊科戒烟试验(COSTED)干预(提供电子烟启动包和简短的戒烟建议)与向当地戒烟服务机构提供建议相比,在当前建议的最高可接受阈值下具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cost-utility analysis of provision of e-cigarette starter kits for smoking cessation in emergency departments: An economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the Cessation of Smoking Trial in Emergency Department (COSTED) intervention compared with signposting to local stop smoking service (SSS) from the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective.

Design, setting and participants: This was a two-group, multi-centre, pragmatic, individually randomized controlled trial set in six Emergency Departments (EDs) in urban and rural areas in the United Kingdom. Adult (≥ 18 years) daily smokers (at least one cigarette or equivalent per day) but not daily e-cigarette users, with carbon monoxide reading ≥ 8 parts per million, attending the ED (n = 972) were included. The intervention consisted of provision of an e-cigarette starter kit plus brief smoking cessation advice and referral to a local SSS. Control was an information card on how to access local SSS.

Measurements: Intervention costs included costs of training and delivery. Control costs included costs of printing information cards. Costs of smoking cessation and health-care services were estimated based on quantities reported by participants and unit costs extracted from secondary sources. The effects were measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from EQ-5D-5L. Other outcomes were smoking cessation measures. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which was calculated by dividing the difference in costs by the difference in QALYs between groups.

Findings: The mean intervention costs were £48 [standard error (SE) = £0] per participant and the mean control costs were £0.2 (SE = £0) per participant. Using regression estimates, total costs were £31 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£341 to £283] higher and 6-month QALYs were 0.004 (95% CI = -0.004 to 0.014) higher in the intervention group than in the control group. The ICER was calculated at £7750 (probability of cost-effective at range £20 000-30 000: 72.2-76.5%).

Conclusions: The UK Cessation of Smoking Trial in Emergency Department (COSTED) intervention (provision of an e-cigarette starter kit plus brief smoking cessation advice) was cost-effective compared with signposting to local stop smoking services under the current recommendations of the maximum acceptable thresholds.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Addiction
Addiction 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Effect of a peer-led emergency department behavioral intervention on non-fatal opioid overdose: 18-month outcome in the Navigator randomized controlled trial. Client preferences for the design and delivery of injectable opioid agonist treatment services: Results from a best-worst scaling task. School-based interventions targeting substance use among young people in low-and-middle-income countries: A scoping review. The relationship between cannabis and nicotine use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. What is the prevalence of anabolic-androgenic steroid use among women? A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1