IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i4p437-448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Smoking Cessation: Standardizing the Cost-Effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • E. T. Ronckers

    (Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, and the Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, the Netherlands., S.Ronckers@BEOZ.unimaas.nl)

  • W. Groot

    (Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, and the Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, the Netherlands.)

  • A.J.H.A. Ament

    (Department of Health Organisation, Policy and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, and the Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, the Netherlands.)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • E. T. Ronckers & W. Groot & A.J.H.A. Ament, 2005. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Smoking Cessation: Standardizing the Cost-Effectiveness," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 437-448, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:437-448
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05278431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05278431
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05278431?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Herman, Patricia M. & Avery, Deirdre J. & Schemp, Crystal S. & Walsh, Michele E., 2009. "Are cost-inclusive evaluations worth the effort?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 55-61, February.
    2. Kristian Bolin, 2012. "Economic Evaluation of Smoking-Cessation Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(7), pages 551-564, July.
    3. 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.
    4. van Baal, Pieter H.M. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Hoogenveen, Rudolf T. & Feenstra, Talitha L., 2007. "Increasing tobacco taxes: A cheap tool to increase public health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 142-152, July.

    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:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:437-448. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.