Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis and model-based cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis of increased dosage (3 vs. 1 consecutive contests) and enhanced content (supplemental smoking-cessation counseling) of the Quit-and Win contest using data from a randomized control trial enrolling college students in the US. Methods For the cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses, we used a microsimulation model of the life course of current and former smokers to translate the distribution of the duration of continuous abstinence among each treatment arm's participants observed at the end of the trial (N= 1217) into expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs and an incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Missing observations in the trial were classified as smoking. For our reference case, we took a societal perspective and used a 3% discount rate for costs and benefits. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to account for model and trial-estimated parameter uncertainty. We also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (cost per additional intermediate cessation) using direct costs of the intervention and two trial-based estimates of intermediate cessation: (a) biochemically verified (BV) 6-month continuous abstinence and (b) BV 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months. Results Multiple contests resulted in a significantly higher BV 6-month continuous abstinence rate (RD0.04), at a cost of $1275 per additional quit, and increased the duration of continuous abstinence among quitters. In the long run, multiple contests lead to an average gain of 0.03 QALYs and were cost saving. Incorporating parameter uncertainty into the analyses, the expected INMB was greater than $1000 for any realistic willingness to pay (WTP) for a QALY. Conclusions Assuming missing values were smoking, multiple contests appear to dominate a single contest from a societal perspective. Funding agencies seeking to promote population health by funding a Quit-and-Win contest in a university setting should strongly consider offering multiple consecutive contests. Further research is needed to evaluate multiple contests compared to no contest.

ObjectiveTo investigate the tobacco-attributable burden on disease, medical costs, productivity losses and informal caregiving; and to estimate the health and economic gains that can be achieved if the main tobacco control measures (raising taxes on tobacco, plain packaging, advertising bans and smoke-free environments) are fully implemented in eight countries that encompass 80% of the Latin American population.DesignMarkov probabilistic microsimulation economic model of the natural history, costs and quality of life associated with the main tobacco-related diseases. Model inputs and data on labour productivity, informal caregivers’ burden and interventions’ effectiveness were obtained through literature review, surveys, civil registrations, vital statistics and hospital databases. Epidemiological and economic data from January to October 2020 were used to populate the model.FindingsIn these eight countries, smoking is responsible each year for 351 000 deaths, 2.25 million disease events, 12.2 million healthy years of life lost, US$22.8 billion in direct medical costs, US$16.2 billion in lost productivity and US$10.8 billion in caregiver costs. These economic losses represent 1.4% of countries’ aggregated gross domestic products. The full implementation and enforcement of the four strategies: taxes, plain packaging, advertising bans and smoke-free environments would avert 271 000, 78 000, 71 000 and 39 000 deaths, respectively, in the next 10 years, and result in US$63.8, US$12.3, US$11.4 and US$5.7 billions in economic gains, respectively, on top of the benefits being achieved today by the current level of implementation of these measures.ConclusionsSmoking represents a substantial burden in Latin America. The full implementation of tobacco control measures could successfully avert deaths and disability, reduce healthcare spending and caregiver and productivity losses, likely resulting in large net economic benefits.

BackgroundOne in four French adults smoked daily in 2021, compared with one in six in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. To strengthen its tobacco control policy, in 2016, France has started implementing a policy package that includes a 3-year gradual price increase, plain packaging, an annual social marketing campaign promoting cessation and the reimbursement of nicotine replacement products. This study aims to evaluate the health and economic impact of this policy package.MethodsThe long-term policy impact on disease cases, healthcare expenditure and gains in labour participation and productivity was evaluated by using the OECD microsimulation model for Strategic Public Health Planning for Non-Communicable Diseases. The model was fed with historical and projected trends on tobacco smoking prevalence as produced by the policy package.ResultsOver the period 2023–2050, the policy package is estimated to avoid about 4.03 million (2.09–11.84 million) cases of chronic diseases, save €578 million (365–1848 million) per year in health expenditure and increase employment and workforce productivity by the equivalent to 19 800 (9100–59 900) additional full-time workers per year, compared with a scenario in which the intervention package is not implemented. The intervention cost is estimated at about €148 million per year. For each euro invested in the policy package, €4 will be returned in long-term savings in healthcare expenditure.ConclusionsThe tobacco control policy package implemented by France, targeting smoking initiation and promoting tobacco cessation is an effective intervention with an excellent return on investment.

BackgroundTobacco control investment cases analyse the health and socioeconomic costs of tobacco use and the benefits that can be achieved from implementing measures outlined in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). They are intended to provide policy-makers and other stakeholders with country-level evidence that is relevant, useful and responsive to national priorities and policy context.MethodsThis paper synthesises findings from investment cases conducted in Armenia, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Laos, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nepal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tunisia and Zambia. We examine annual socioeconomic costs associated with tobacco use, focusing on smoking-related healthcare expenditures, the value of lives lost due to tobacco-related mortality and workplace productivity losses due to smoking. We explore potential benefits associated with WHO FCTC tobacco demand-reduction measures.ResultsTobacco use results in average annual socioeconomic losses of US$95 million, US$610 million and US$1.6 billion among the low-income (n=3), lower-middle-income (n=12) and upper-middle-income countries (n=6) included in this analysis, respectively. These losses are equal to 1.1%, 1.8% and 2.9% of average annual national gross domestic product, respectively. Implementation and enforcement of WHO FCTC tobacco demand-reduction measures would lead to reduced tobacco use, fewer tobacco-related deaths and reduced socioeconomic losses.ConclusionsWHO FCTC tobacco control measures would provide a positive return on investment in every country analysed.

Tobacco consumption is one of the leading causes of preventable death. In this study, we analyze whether someone's genetic predisposition to smoking moderates the response to tobacco excise taxes. We interact polygenic scores for smoking behavior with state-level tobacco excise taxes in longitudinal data (1992-2016) from the US Health and Retirement Study (N = 12,058). Someone's genetic propensity to smoking moderates the effect of tobacco excise taxes on smoking behavior along the extensive margin (smoking vs. not smoking) and the intensive margin (the amount of tobacco consumed). In our analysis sample, we do not find a significant gene-environment interaction effect on smoking cessation. When tobacco excise taxes are relatively high, those with a high genetic predisposition to smoking are less likely (i) to smoke, and (ii) to smoke heavily. While tobacco excise taxes have been effective in reducing smoking, the gene-environment interaction effects we observe in our sample suggest that policy makers could benefit from taking into account the moderating role of genes in the design of future tobacco control policies.

Three-quarters of homeless people smoke cigarettes. Financial incentives for smoking abstinence have appeared promising in nonexperimental studies of homeless smokers, but randomized controlled trial (RCT) data are lacking. We conducted a pilot RCT of financial incentives for homeless smokers. Incentive arm participants (N = 25) could earn escalating $15-$35 rewards for brief smoking abstinence (exhaled carbon monoxide <8 parts per million) assessed 14 times over 8 weeks. Control arm participants (N = 25) were given $10 at each assessment regardless of abstinence. All participants were offered nicotine patches and counseling. The primary outcome was a repeated measure of brief smoking abstinence across 14 assessments. The secondary outcome was brief abstinence at 8 weeks. Exploratory outcomes were self-reported 1-day and 7-day abstinence from (1) any cigarette and (2) any puff of a cigarette. Other outcomes included 24-hour quit attempts, nicotine patch use, counseling attendance, and changes in alcohol and drug use. Compared to control, incentive arm participants were more likely to achieve brief abstinence overall (odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 2.89 to 18.3) and at 8 weeks (48% vs. 8%, p = .004). Similar effects were seen for 1-day abstinence, but 7-day puff abstinence was negligible in both arms. Incentive arm participants made more quit attempts (p = .03). Nicotine patch use and counseling attendance were not significantly different between the groups. Alcohol and drug use did not change significantly in either group. Among homeless smokers, financial incentives increased brief smoking abstinence and quit attempts without worsening substance use. This approach merits further development focused on promoting sustained abstinence. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02565381). Smoking is common among homeless people, and conventional tobacco treatment strategies have yielded modest results in this population. This pilot RCT suggests that financial incentives may be a safe way to promote brief smoking abstinence and quit attempts in this vulnerable group of smokers. However, further development is necessary to translate this approach into real-world settings and to promote sustained periods of smoking abstinence.

BackgroundAotearoa-New Zealand (A/NZ) was the first country to pass a comprehensive commercial tobacco endgame strategy into law. Key components include the denicotinisation of smoked tobacco products and a major reduction in tobacco retail outlets. Understanding the potential long-term economic impacts of such measures is important for government planning.DesignA tobacco policy simulation model that evaluated the health impacts of the A/NZ Smokefree Action Plan was extended to evaluate the economic effects from both government and citizen perspectives. Estimates were presented in 2021 US$, discounted at 3% per annum.ResultsThe modelled endgame policy package generates considerable growth in income for the A/NZ population with a total cumulative gain of US$31 billion by 2050. From a government perspective, increased superannuation payments and reduced tobacco excise tax revenue result in a negative net financial position and a cumulative shortfall of US$11.5 billion by 2050. In a sensitivity analysis considering future labour force changes, the government’s cumulative net position remained negative by 2050, but only by US$1.9 billion.ConclusionsA policy such as the A/NZ Smokefree Action Plan is likely to produce substantial economic benefits for citizens, and modest impacts on government finances related to reduced tobacco tax and increases in aged pensions due to increased life expectancy. Such costs can be anticipated and planned for and might be largely offset by future increases in the size of the labour force and the proportion of people 65+ years old working in the formal economy.

To provide an up-to-date analysis on the relationship between excise taxes and the prevalence of cigarette smoking in the United States. Linear mixed-effects models were used to model the relationship between excise taxes and prevalence of cigarette smoking in each state from 2001 through 2015. From 2001 through 2015, increases in state-level excise taxes were associated with declines in prevalence of cigarette smoking. The effect was strongest in young adults (age 18-24) and weakest in low-income individuals (<$25,000). Despite the shrinking pool of current smokers, excise taxes remain a valuable tool in public-health efforts to reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking. States with high smoking prevalence may find increased excise taxes an effective measure to reduce population smoking prevalence. Since the effect is greatest in young adults, benefits of increased tax would likely accumulate over time by preventing new smokers in the pivotal young-adult years.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention to improve referral and treatment of pregnant smokers in routine practice, and to assess the incremental costs to the National Health Service (NHS) per additional woman quitting smoking.DesignInterrupted time series analysis of routine data before and after introducing the intervention, within-study economic evaluation.SettingEight acute NHS hospital trusts and 12 local authority areas in North East England.Participants37 726 records of singleton delivery including 10 594 to mothers classified as smoking during pregnancy.InterventionsA package of measures implemented in trusts and smoking cessation services, aimed at increasing the proportion of pregnant smokers quitting during pregnancy, comprising skills training for healthcare and smoking cessation staff; universal carbon monoxide monitoring with routine opt-out referral for smoking cessation support; provision of carbon monoxide monitors and supporting materials; and an explicit referral pathway and follow-up protocol.Main outcome measuresReferrals to smoking cessation services; probability of quitting smoking during pregnancy; additional costs to health services; incremental cost per additional woman quitting.ResultsAfter introduction of the intervention, the referral rate increased more than twofold (incidence rate ratio=2.47, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.81) and the probability of quitting by delivery increased (adjusted OR=1.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.12). The additional cost per delivery was £31 and the incremental cost per additional quit was £952; 31 pregnant women needed to be treated for each additional quitter.ConclusionsThe implementation of a system-wide complex healthcare intervention was associated with significant increase in rates of quitting by delivery.

BackgroundAcross time, geographies and country income levels, smoking prevalence is highest among people with lower incomes. Smoking causes further impoverishment of those on the lower end of the income spectrum through expenditure on tobacco and greater risk of ill health.MethodsThis paper summarises the results of investment case equity analyses for 19 countries, presenting the effects of increased taxation on smoking prevalence, health and expenditures. We disaggregate the number of people who smoke, smoking-attributable mortality and cigarette expenditures using smoking prevalence data by income quintile. A uniform 30% increase in price was applied across countries. We estimated the effects of the price increase on smoking prevalence, mortality and cigarette expenditures.ResultsIn all but one country (Bhutan), a one-time 30% increase in price would reduce smoking prevalence by the largest percent among the poorest 20% of the population. All income groups in all countries would spend more on cigarettes with a 30% increase in price. However, the poorest 20% would pay an average of 12% of the additional money spent.ConclusionsOur results confirm that health benefits from increases in price through taxation are pro-poor. Even in countries where smoking prevalence is higher among wealthier groups, increasing prices can still be pro-poor due to variable responsiveness to higher prices. The costs associated with higher smoking prevalence among the poor, together with often limited access to healthcare services and displaced spending on basic needs, result in health inequality and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.