Is it cost‐effective to provide internet‐based interventions to complement the current provision of smoking cessation services in the Netherlands? An analysis based on the EQUIPTMOD.

Abstract: Background and aim: The cost‐effectiveness of internet‐based smoking cessation interventions is difficult to determine when they are provided as a complement to current smoking cessation services. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of such an alternate package compared with existing smoking cessation services alone (current package). Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify internet‐based smoking cessation interventions in the Netherlands. A meta‐analysis was then performed to determine the pooled effectiveness of a (web‐based) computer‐tailored intervention. The mean cost of implementing internet based interventions was calculated using available information, while intervention reach was sourced from an English study. We used EQUIPTMOD, a Markov‐based state‐transition model, to calculate the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios [expressed as cost per quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) gained] for different time horizons to assess the value of providing internet‐based interventions to complement the current package.). Deterministic sensitivity analyses tested the uncertainty around intervention costs per smoker, relative risks, and the intervention reach. Results: Internet‐based interventions had an estimated pooled relative risk of 1.40; average costs per smoker of €2.71; and a reach of 0.41% of all smokers. The alternate package (i.e. provision of internet‐based intervention to the current package) was dominant (cost‐saving) compared with the current package alone (0.14 QALY gained per 1000 smokers; reduced health‐care costs of €602.91 per 1000 smokers for the life‐time horizon). The alternate package remained dominant in all sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Providing internet‐based smoking cessation interventions to complement the current provision of smoking cessation services could be a cost‐saving policy option in the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]