Jones Matthew, Lewis Sarah, Parrott Steve, Coleman Tim
Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 13;5(11):e008998. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008998.
To identify and critically assess previous economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions delivered during pregnancy.
Qualitative review of studies with primary data collection or hypothetical modelling. Quality assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist.
Electronic search of 13 databases including Medline, Econlit, Embase, and PubMed, and manual search of the UK's National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines and US Surgeon General.
All study designs considered if they were published in English, evaluated a cessation intervention delivered to pregnant women during pregnancy, and reported any relevant economic evaluation metric (eg, cost per quitter, incremental cost per quality adjusted life year).
18 studies were included. 18 evaluations were conducted alongside clinical trials, four were part of observational studies, five were hypothetical decision-analytic models and one combined modelling with within-trial analysis. Analyses conducted were cost-offset (nine studies), cost-effectiveness (five studies), cost-utility (two studies), and combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (two studies). Six studies each were identified as high, fair and poor quality, respectively. All interventions were demonstrated to be cost-effective except motivational interviewing which was dominated by usual care (one study). Areas where the current literature was limited were the robust investigation of uncertainty, including time horizons that included outcomes beyond the end of pregnancy, including major morbidities for the mother and her infant, and incorporating better estimates of postpartum relapse.
There are relatively few high quality economic evaluations of cessation interventions during pregnancy. The majority of the literature suggests that such interventions offer value for money; however, there are methodological issues that require addressing, including investigating uncertainty more robustly, utilising better estimates for postpartum relapse, extending beyond a within-pregnancy time horizon, and including major morbidities for the mother and her infant for within-pregnancy and beyond.
识别并严格评估先前对孕期戒烟干预措施的经济学评价。
对通过原始数据收集或假设模型进行的研究进行定性综述。使用《卫生经济研究质量清单》评估质量。
对13个数据库进行电子检索,包括Medline、Econlit、Embase和PubMed,并人工检索英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所指南和美国卫生局局长报告。
所有研究设计,只要以英文发表、评估孕期对孕妇实施的戒烟干预措施并报告任何相关的经济学评价指标(如每位戒烟者的成本、每质量调整生命年的增量成本)。
纳入18项研究。18项评价与临床试验同时进行,4项是观察性研究的一部分,5项是假设性决策分析模型,1项是模型与试验内分析相结合。进行的分析包括成本抵消(9项研究)、成本效果分析(5项研究)、成本效用分析(2项研究)以及成本效果分析与成本效用分析相结合(2项研究)。分别有6项研究被确定为高质量、中等质量和低质量。除动机性访谈被常规护理主导(1项研究)外,所有干预措施均显示具有成本效益。当前文献有限的领域包括对不确定性的有力调查,包括涵盖孕期结束后结果的时间范围,包括母亲及其婴儿的主要发病率,以及纳入对产后复发的更好估计。
孕期戒烟干预措施的高质量经济学评价相对较少。大多数文献表明此类干预措施具有性价比;然而,存在一些需要解决的方法学问题,包括更有力地调查不确定性、对产后复发采用更好的估计、超出孕期时间范围以及纳入母亲及其婴儿在孕期及之后的主要发病率。