Cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions using cell phones in a low-income population

Technology-based interventions for tobacco smoking prevention and treatment: a 20-year bibliometric analysis (2003-2022)

BACKGROUND

Substance abuse, particularly tobacco smoking, is a significant global public health concern. Efforts have been made to reduce smoking prevalence and promote cessation, but challenges, such as nicotine addiction, marketing tactics by tobacco industry, and cultural acceptability hinder progress. Technology has emerged as a potential tool to address these challenges by providing innovative scalable interventions. The objective of the study was to analyze and map scientific literature on technology-based intervention for tobacco prevention and treatment.

METHODS

A bibliometric methodology was conducted. Scopus database was used to retrieve relevant research articles published between 2003 and 2022. The analysis included publication trends, key contributors, research hotspots, research themes, the most impactful articles, and emerging research topics.

RESULTS

A total of 639 articles were found, with a slow and fluctuating growth pattern observed after 2011. The Journal of Medical Internet Research was the most prominent journal in the field. The United States was the leading country in the field, followed up by the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Research hotspots included smoking cessation, randomized controlled trials, and technology-based methods such as internet, mHealth, smartphone apps, text messages, and social media. Four primary research themes were identified: development of smartphone applications, efficacy of text messaging interventions, acceptance and effectiveness of smartphone applications, and interventions targeting young adults and students using mobile phone and social media platforms. The top 10 cited articles demonstrated effectiveness of digital interventions in promoting smoking cessation rates and reducing relapse rates. Emerging research topics included the use of virtual reality interventions, interventions for specific populations through personalized tools, and technology-based interventions in non-Western countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the current study highlight the potential of technology to address the challenges associated with tobacco smoking. Further future research in this area is warranted to continue advancing the field and developing effective and evidence-based interventions to combat tobacco smoking.

Mobile Phone-Based Interventions for Smoking Cessation Among Young People: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Mobile phone-based cessation interventions have emerged as a promising alternative for smoking cessation, while evidence of the efficacy of mobile phone-based smoking cessation programs among young people is mixed.

Objective

This study aimed to determine the efficacy of mobile phone-based interventions compared to usual practice or assessment-only controls on smoking cessation in young people.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science on March 8, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of mobile phone-based interventions on smoking cessation in young people (age ≤30 years). The risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.

Results

A total of 13 eligible studies, comprising 27,240 participants, were included in this analysis. The age range of the participants was between 16 and 30 years. Nine studies were SMS text messaging interventions, and 4 studies were app-based interventions. The duration of the smoking cessation intervention varied from 5 days to 6 months. The included studies were conducted in the following countries: the United States, China, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, and Thailand. The meta-analysis revealed that SMS text messaging interventions significantly improved continuous abstinence rates compared to inactive control conditions (risk ratio [RR] 1.51, 95% CI 1.24-1.84). The subgroup analysis showed pooled RRs of 1.90 (95% CI 1.29-2.81), 1.64 (95% CI 1.23-2.18), and 1.35 (95% CI 1.04-1.76) for continuous abstinence at the 1-, 3-, and 6- month follow-up, respectively. Pooling across 7 studies, SMS text messaging interventions showed efficacy in promoting 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA), with an RR of 1.83 (95% CI 1.34-2.48). The subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant impact at the 1- and 3-month follow-ups, with pooled RRs of 1.72 (95% CI 1.13-2.63) and 2.54 (95% CI 2.05-3.14), respectively, compared to inactive control conditions. However, at the 6-month follow-up, the efficacy of SMS text messaging interventions in promoting 7-day PPA was not statistically significant (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92-2.28). In contrast, app-based interventions did not show significant efficacy in promoting continuous abstinence or 7-day PPA. However, it is important to note that the evidence for app-based interventions was limited.

Conclusions

SMS text messaging-based smoking cessation interventions compared to inactive controls were associated with abstinence among young people and could be considered a viable option for smoking cessation in this population. More research is needed on smoking cessation apps, especially apps that target young people. Future research should focus on identifying the most effective mobile phone-based cessation approaches and on developing strategies to increase their uptake and intention.

Identifying best modelling practices for tobacco control policy simulations: a systematic review and a novel quality assessment framework

BACKGROUND

Policy simulation models (PSMs) have been used extensively to shape health policies before real-world implementation and evaluate post-implementation impact. This systematic review aimed to examine best practices, identify common pitfalls in tobacco control PSMs and propose a modelling quality assessment framework.

METHODS

We searched five databases to identify eligible publications from July 2013 to August 2019. We additionally included papers from Feirman et al for studies before July 2013. Tobacco control PSMs that project tobacco use and tobacco-related outcomes from smoking policies were included. We extracted model inputs, structure and outputs data for models used in two or more included papers. Using our proposed quality assessment framework, we scored these models on population representativeness, policy effectiveness evidence, simulated smoking histories, included smoking-related diseases, exposure-outcome lag time, transparency, sensitivity analysis, validation and equity.

FINDINGS

We found 146 eligible papers and 25 distinct models. Most models used population data from public or administrative registries, and all performed sensitivity analysis. However, smoking behaviour was commonly modelled into crude categories of smoking status. Eight models only presented overall changes in mortality rather than explicitly considering smoking-related diseases. Only four models reported impacts on health inequalities, and none offered the source code. Overall, the higher scored models achieved higher citation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

While fragments of good practices were widespread across the reviewed PSMs, only a few included a 'critical mass' of the good practices specified in our quality assessment framework. This framework might, therefore, potentially serve as a benchmark and support sharing of good modelling practices.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Comprehensive Smoking-Cessation Interventions Based on the Community and Hospital Collaboration

Background

The prevalence of cigarette smoking in China is high and the utilization of smoking cessation clinics is very low. Multicomponent smoking cessation interventions involving community and hospital collaboration have the potential to increase the smoking cessation rate. However, the cost-effectiveness of this intervention model is unknown.

Methods

We conducted a smoking cessation intervention trial in 19 community health service centers in Beijing, China. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective to compare three strategies of smoking cessation: no intervention (NI), pharmacological intervention (PI), and comprehensive intervention (CI) (PI plus online health promotion). A Markov model, with a time horizon of 20 years, was used to simulate the natural progression of estimated 10,000 male smokers. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to obtain data on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by using the five-level EuroQol-5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore parameters of uncertainty in the model.

Results

A total of 680 participants were included in this study, including 283 in the PI group and 397 in the CI group. After 6 months of follow-up, the smoking cessation rate reached 30.0% in the CI group and 21.2% in the PI group. Using the Markov model, compared with the NI group, the intervention strategies of the PI group and the CI group were found to be cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $535.62/QALY and $366.19/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the CI strategy was always the most cost-effective intervention.

Conclusion

CI for smoking cessation, based in hospital and community in China, is more cost-effective than PI alone. Therefore, this smoking cessation model should be considered to be implemented in healthcare settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of text messaging to support health advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Smoking in one of the most serious public health problems. It is well known that it constitutes a major risk factor for chronic diseases and the leading cause of preventable death worldwide. Due to high prevalence of smokers, new cost-effective strategies seeking to increase smoking cessation rates are needed.

METHODS

We performed a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two treatments: health advice provided by general practitioners and nurses in primary care, and health advice reinforced by sending motivational text messages to smokers' mobile phones. A Markov model was used in which smokers transitioned between three mutually exclusive health states (smoker, former smoker and dead) after 6-month cycles. We calculated the cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the sending of motivational messages. Health care and society perspectives (separately) was adopted. Costs taken into account were direct health care costs and direct health care cost and costs for lost productivity, respectively. Additionally, deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed modifying the probability of smoking cessation with each option.

RESULTS

Sending of text messages as a tool to support health advice was found to be cost-effective as it was associated with increases in costs of €7.4 and €1,327 per QALY gained (ICUR) for men and women respectively from a healthcare perspective, significantly far from the published cost-effectiveness threshold. From a societal perspective, the combined programmed was dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

Sending text messages is a cost-effective approach. These findings support the implantation of the combined program across primary care health centres.

Assessment of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Tailored Web- and Text-Based Smoking Cessation Support in Primary Care (iQuit in Practice II): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of smoking is declining; however, it continues to be a major public health burden. In England, primary care is the health setting that provides smoking cessation support to most smokers. However, this setting has one of the lowest success rates. The iQuit in practice intervention (iQuit) is a tailored web-based and text message intervention developed for use in primary care consultations as an adjunct to routine smoking cessation support with the aim of increasing success rates. iQuit has demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

This definitive trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iQuit when used as an adjunct to the usual support provided to patients who wish to quit smoking, compared with usual care alone.

METHODS

The iQuit in Practice II trial is a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 1:1 individual allocation comparing usual care (ie, pharmacotherapy combined with multisession behavioral support)-the control-with usual care plus iQuit-the intervention. Participants were recruited through primary care clinics and talked to a smoking cessation advisor. Participants were randomized during the initial consultation, and those allocated to the intervention group received a tailored advice report and 90 days of text messaging in addition to the standard support provided to all patients.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is self-reported prolonged abstinence biochemically verified using saliva cotinine at 6 months after the quit date. A sample size of 1700 participants, with 850 per arm, would yield 90% power to detect a 4.3% difference in validated quit rates between the groups at the two-sided 5% level of significance. The Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee approved the study in February 2016, and funding for the study was granted from May 2016. In total, 1671 participants were recruited between August 2016 and July 2019. Follow-up for all participants was completed in January 2020. Data analysis will begin in the summer of 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

iQuit in Practice II is a definitive, pragmatic RCT assessing whether a digital intervention can augment the impact of routine smoking cessation support in primary care. Previous research has found good acceptability and feasibility for delivering iQuit among smoking cessation advisors working in primary care. If demonstrated to be cost-effective, iQuit could be delivered across primary care and other settings, such as community pharmacies. The potential benefit would likely be highest where less behavioral support is delivered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 44559004; http://www.isrctn.com /ISRCTN44559004.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/17160.

Cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity versus a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention in a dental setting: long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a high-intensity and a low-intensity smoking cessation treatment programme (HIT and LIT) using long-term follow-up effectiveness data and to validate the cost-effectiveness results based on short-term follow-up.

DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Intervention effectiveness was estimated in a randomised controlled trial as numbers of abstinent participants after 1 and 5-8 years of follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective using a Markov model by estimating future disease-related costs (in Euro (€) 2018) and health effects (in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). Programmes were explicitly compared in an incremental analysis, and the results were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

SETTING

The study was conducted in dental clinics in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

294 smokers aged 19-71 years were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Behaviour therapy, coaching and pharmacological advice (HIT) was compared with one counselling session introducing a conventional self-help programme (LIT).

RESULTS

The more costly HIT led to higher number of 6-month continuous abstinent participants after 1 year and higher number of sustained abstinent participants after 5-8 years, which translates into larger societal costs avoided and health gains than LIT. The incremental cost/QALY of HIT compared with LIT amounted to €918 and €3786 using short-term and long-term effectiveness, respectively, which is considered very cost-effective in Sweden.

CONCLUSION

CEA favours the more costly HIT if decision makers are willing to spend at least €4000/QALY for tobacco cessation treatment.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I² = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I² = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I² = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I² = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I² = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.

Mindfulness-Based Smoking Cessation Enhanced With Mobile Technology (iQuit Mindfully): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Mindfulness training shows promise for improving smoking cessation and lapse recovery, and between-session mobile health messages could enhance treatment engagement and effectiveness. Personalized, in-the-moment text messaging support could be particularly useful for low-income smokers with fewer smoking cessation resources.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study examined the feasibility of a text messaging program (iQuit Mindfully) as an adjunct to in-person Mindfulness-Based Addiction Treatment (MBAT) for smoking cessation.

METHODS

A total of 71 participants were randomly assigned to MBAT (n=33) or iQuit Mindfully (n=38; MBAT + between-session text messages); of these, 70% (50/71) were African American, and 61% (43/71) had an annual household income of US $30,000 or less. All participants received 8 weekly therapist-led group counseling sessions, nicotine patches, and self-help materials. Outcomes were feasibility (attrition, engagement, and participants' ratings), participants' feedback regarding the text messaging intervention, and smoking cessation (assessed in person).

RESULTS

Strong retention was achieved (76% [54/71] at the end of treatment, and 89% [63/71] at 1-month follow-up). In the iQuit Mindfully group, engagement was high (88% [29/33] indicated reading all or most texts, and 89% [34/38] engaged in interactive texting), and participants provided positive ratings (on a 1-10 scale, average rating for recommending the program to others was 8.4 [SD 2.5]). Participants indicated benefiting from the texts (eg, appreciating encouraging reminders, coping strategies, and social support) and suggested improvements (eg, more personalization). Overall, biochemically confirmed smoking cessation rates were 22% (12/55) at the end of treatment and 19% (12/62) at 1-month follow-up, with no differences between conditions. Living below the poverty level predicted worse cessation outcomes at 1-month follow-up among participants receiving in-person only treatment (P=.03) but not among those receiving iQuit Mindfully.

CONCLUSIONS

Text messaging appears to be a feasible and acceptable modality for supporting mindfulness-based smoking cessation treatment. The availability of 24/7 text messaging might be particularly helpful for low-income smokers who have access to fewer cessation resources and experience significant day-to-day barriers to quitting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03029819; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03029819.