IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000094.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An economic evaluation of an online computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention that includes message frame-tailoring: A randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Maria B Altendorf
  • Julia C M van Weert
  • Ciska Hoving
  • Eline S Smit

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria B Altendorf & Julia C M van Weert & Ciska Hoving & Eline S Smit, 2022. "An economic evaluation of an online computer-tailored smoking cessation intervention that includes message frame-tailoring: A randomized controlled trial," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(9), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000094
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000094
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000094&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000094?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Septianto, Felix & Northey, Gavin & Dolan, Rebecca, 2019. "The effects of political ideology and message framing on counterfeiting: The mediating role of emotions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 206-214.
    2. Lidia Engel & Duncan Mortimer & Stirling Bryan & Scott A. Lear & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2017. "An Investigation of the Overlap Between the ICECAP-A and Five Preference-Based Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 741-753, July.
    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. Septianto, Felix & Ye, Sheng & Northey, Gavin, 2021. "The effectiveness of advertising images in promoting experiential offerings: An emotional response approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 344-352.
    2. Feng, Wenting & Yang, Morgan X. & Yu, Irina Y., 2023. "From devil to angel: How being envied for luxury brand social media word of mouth discourages counterfeit purchases," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    3. Engel, Lidia & Bryan, Stirling & Noonan, Vanessa K. & Whitehurst, David G.T., 2018. "Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between standardized instruments that measure health-related quality of life, capability wellbeing and subjective wellbeing: An application in the ," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 154-164.
    4. Septianto, Felix & Kemper, Joya A. & Chiew, Tung Moi, 2020. "The interactive effects of emotions and numerical information in increasing consumer support to conservation efforts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 445-455.
    5. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    6. Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1235-1244, November.
    7. Myles-Jay Linton & Paul Mark Mitchell & Hareth Al-Janabi & Michael Schlander & Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Jasper Ubels & Joanna Coast, 2020. "Comparing the German Translation of the ICECAP-A Capability Wellbeing Measure to the Original English Version: Psychometric Properties across Healthy Samples and Seven Health Condition Groups," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(3), pages 651-673, July.
    8. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    9. Northey, Gavin & Chan, Eugene Y., 2020. "Political conservatism and preference for (a)symmetric brand logos," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 149-159.
    10. Riza Casidy & Denni Arli & Lay Peng Tan, 2024. "The Influence of Religious Identification on Strategic Green Marketing Orientation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 215-231, November.
    11. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Mulhern, Brendan, 2022. "Where do measures of health, social care and wellbeing fit within a wider measurement framework? Implications for the measurement of quality of life and the identification of bolt-ons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    12. Park, JungKun & Hong, EunPyo & Ahn, Jiseon & Hyun, Hyowon, 2023. "Role of multidimensional customer brand engagement on customer behavior for online grocery shopping," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.
    14. Jasinenko, Anna & Christandl, Fabian & Meynhardt, Timo, 2020. "Justified by ideology: Why conservatives care less about corporate social irresponsibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 290-303.
    15. Khalil, Mary & Khan, Saira & Septianto, Felix, 2020. "Effects of power and implicit theories on donation," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 98-107.
    16. Matthew Franklin & Katherine Payne & Rachel A. Elliott, 2018. "Quantifying the Relationship between Capability and Health in Older People: Can’t Map, Won’t Map," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 79-94, January.
    17. Balaji, M.S. & Jiang, Yangyang & Jha, Subhash, 2021. "Nanoinfluencer marketing: How message features affect credibility and behavioral intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 293-304.
    18. Khalil, Mary & Northey, Gavin & Septianto, Felix & Lang, Bodo, 2022. "Hopefully that’s not wasted! The role of hope for reducing food waste," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 59-70.
    19. Zhang, Xiadan & Gong, Xiushuang & Jiang, Jing, 2021. "Dump or recycle? Nostalgia and consumer recycling behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 594-603.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pdig00:0000094. 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: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    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.