Search

Abstract: Aims: To evaluate costs, effects and cost‐effectiveness of increased reach of specific smoking cessation interventions in Germany. Design: A Markov‐based state transition return on investment model (EQUIPTMOD) was used to evaluate current smoking cessation interventions as well as two prospective investment scenarios. A health‐care perspective (extended to include out‐of‐pocket payments) with life‐time horizon was considered. A probabilistic analysis was used to assess uncertainty concerning predicted estimates. Setting: Germany. Participants: Cohort of current smoking population (18+ years) in Germany. Interventions: Interventions included group‐based behavioural support, financial incentive programmes and varenicline. For prospective scenario 1 the reach of group‐based behavioral support, financial incentive programme and varenicline was increased by 1% of yearly quit attempts (= 57 915 quit attempts), while prospective scenario 2 represented a higher reach, mirroring the levels observed in England. Measurements: EQUIPTMOD considered reach, intervention cost, number of quitters, quality‐of‐life years (QALYs) gained, cost‐effectiveness and return on investment. Findings: The highest returns through reduction in smoking‐related health‐care costs were seen for the financial incentive programme (€2.71 per €1 invested), followed by that of group‐based behavioural support (€1.63 per €1 invested), compared with no interventions. Varenicline had lower returns (€1.02 per €1 invested) than the other two interventions. At the population level, prospective scenario 1 led to 15 034 QALYs gained and €27 million cost‐savings, compared with current investment. Intervention effects and reach contributed most to the uncertainty around the return‐on‐investment estimates. At a hypothetical willingness‐to‐pay threshold of only €5000, the probability of being cost‐effective is approximately 75% for prospective scenario 1. Conclusions: Increasing the reach of group‐based behavioural support, financial incentives and varenicline for smoking cessation by just 1% of current annual quit attempts provides a strategy to German policymakers that improves the population's health outcomes and that may be considered cost‐effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) project aimed to study transferability of economic evidence by co-creating the Tobacco Return On Investment (ROI) tool, previously developed in the United Kingdom, for four sample countries (Germany, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands). The EQUIPT tool provides policymakers and stakeholders with customized information about the economic and wider returns on the investment in evidence-based tobacco control, including smoking cessation interventions. A Stakeholder Interview Survey was developed to engage with the stakeholders in early phases of the development and country adaptation of the ROI tool. The survey assessed stakeholders' information needs, awareness about underlying principles used in economic analyses, opinion about the importance, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tobacco control interventions, and willingness to use a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) tool such as the ROI tool.Methods: A cross sectional study using a mixed method approach was conducted among participating stakeholders in the sample countries and the United Kingdom. The individual questionnaire contained open-ended questions as well as single choice and 7- or 3-point Likert-scale questions. The results corresponding to the priority and needs assessment and to the awareness of stakeholders about underlying principles used in economic analysis are analysed by country and stakeholder categories.Results: Stakeholders considered it important that the decisions on the investments in tobacco control interventions should be supported by scientific evidence, including prevalence of smoking, cost of smoking, quality of life, mortality due to smoking, and effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of smoking cessation interventions. The proposed ROI tool was required to provide this granularity of information. The majority of the stakeholders were aware of the general principles of economic analyses used in decision making contexts but they did not appear to have in-depth knowledge about specific technical details. Generally, stakeholders' answers showed larger variability by country than by stakeholder category.Conclusions: Stakeholders across different European countries viewed the use of HTA evidence to be an important factor in their decision-making process. Further, they considered themselves to be capable of interpreting the results from a ROI tool and were highly motivated to use it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]