IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i17p10879-d903323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smoking Cessation Programs Are Less Effective in Smokers with Low Socioeconomic Status Even When Financial Incentives for Quitting Smoking Are Offered—A Community-Randomized Smoking Cessation Trial in Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotta Pisinger

    (Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
    Danish Heart Foundation, 1120 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Cecilie Goltermann Toxværd

    (Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Mette Rasmussen

    (Clinical Health Promotion Centre, WHO-CC, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Clinical Health Promotion Centre, WHO-CC, Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, 223 62 Lund, Sweden)

Abstract

Financial incentives offered to those who quit smoking have been found effective, also in persons with low socioeconomic status (SES), but no previous study has investigated who benefits most: smokers with low or high SES. In this community-randomized trial (“Richer without smoking”), three Danish municipalities were randomized to reward persons who were abstinent when attending the municipal smoking cessation program (FIMs) and three municipalities were randomized to spend the same amount on smoking cessation campaigns recruiting smokers to the smoking cessation program (CAMs). The municipalities each received approximately USD 16,000. An intention-to-treat approach was used in analyses. In regression analyses adjusted for individual- and municipal-level differences, we found that smokers with high SES living in FIMs had significantly higher proportion of validated long-term successful quitters (OR (95% CI): 2.59 (1.6–4.2)) than high-SES smokers living in CAM. Smokers with low SES, however, did not experience the same benefit of financial incentives as smokers with high SES. Neither the FIMs nor the CAMs succeeded in attracting more smokers with low SES during the intervention year 2018 than the year before. Our study showed that smokers with low SES did not experience the same benefit of financial incentives as smokers with high SES.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotta Pisinger & Cecilie Goltermann Toxværd & Mette Rasmussen, 2022. "Smoking Cessation Programs Are Less Effective in Smokers with Low Socioeconomic Status Even When Financial Incentives for Quitting Smoking Are Offered—A Community-Randomized Smoking Cessation Trial in," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10879-:d:903323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10879/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10879/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kendzor, D.E. & Businelle, M.S. & Poonawalla, I.B. & Cuate, E.L. & Kesh, A. & Rios, D.M. & Ma, P. & Balis, D.S., 2015. "Financial incentives for abstinence among socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals in smoking cessation treatment," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(6), pages 1198-1205.
    2. Ryan J. Courtney & Sundresan Naicker & Anthony Shakeshaft & Philip Clare & Kristy A. Martire & Richard P. Mattick, 2015. "Smoking Cessation among Low-Socioeconomic Status and Disadvantaged Population Groups: A Systematic Review of Research Output," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Marek Milcarz & Kinga Polanska & Leokadia Bak-Romaniszyn & Dorota Kaleta, 2018. "Tobacco Health Risk Awareness among Socially Disadvantaged People—A Crucial Tool for Smoking Cessation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-12, October.
    4. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Ryuichi Ohta & Yoshinori Ryu & Daisuke Kataoka & Chiaki Sano, 2021. "Effectiveness and Challenges in Local Self-Governance: Multifunctional Autonomy in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Pia Johansson, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-46, August.
    5. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    8. Job F. H. Eijsink & Mohamed N. M. T. Al Khayat & Cornelis Boersma & Peter G. J. Horst & Jan C. Wilschut & Maarten J. Postma, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus screening, and subsequent monitoring or treatment among pregnant women in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 75-88, February.
    9. Anne Girault & Chloe Gerves-Pinquie & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Post-Print hal-01973691, HAL.
    10. Matthew Taing & Bryce Kyburz & Isabel Martinez Leal & Kathy Le & Tzu-An Chen & Virmarie Correa-Fernandez & Teresa Williams & Daniel P. O’Connor & Ezemenari M. Obasi & Kathleen Casey & Litty Koshy & Lo, 2020. "Clinician Training in the Adaptation of a Comprehensive Tobacco-Free Workplace Program in Agencies Serving the Homeless and Vulnerably Housed," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-15, August.
    11. F. Tomini & F. Prinzen & A. D. I. Asselt, 2016. "A review of economic evaluation models for cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1159-1172, December.
    12. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    13. Francesca Pierotti & Ilaria Palla & Maarten Treur & Lara Pippo & Giuseppe Turchetti, 2015. "Assessment of the Economic Impact of Belimumab for the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the Italian Setting: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Khachapon Nimdet & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Kittaya Vichansavakul & Surachat Ngorsuraches, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Studies Eliciting Willingness-to-Pay per Quality-Adjusted Life Year: Does It Justify CE Threshold?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    15. Daniel Howdon & James Lomas, 2017. "Pricing implications of non-marginal budgetary impacts in health technology assessment: a conceptual model," Working Papers 148cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    16. Lionel Perrier & Anne Lefranc & David Pérol & Philippe Quittet & Aline Schmidt-Tanguy & Carole Siani & Christian Peretti & Bertrand Favier & Pierre Biron & Philippe Moreau & Jacques Bay & Séverine Lis, 2013. "Cost Effectiveness of Pegfilgrastim Versus Filgrastim After High-Dose Chemotherapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Lymphoma and Myeloma," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 129-138, April.
    17. Martin Hoyle, 2011. "Accounting for the Drug Life Cycle and Future Drug Prices in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 1-15, January.
    18. Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Real Economics Needs to Reflect Real Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-136, February.
    19. Simon Eckermann, 2015. "Kinky Thresholds Revisited: Opportunity Costs Differ in the NE and SW Quadrants," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 7-13, February.
    20. L. Gulácsi & M. Péntek, 2014. "HTA in Central and Eastern European countries; the 2001: A Space Odyssey and efficiency gain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 675-680, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10879-:d:903323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.