School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Front Public Health. 2022 Jul 22;10:853438. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.853438. eCollection 2022.
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.
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.
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.
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.
中国的吸烟率很高,而戒烟诊所的利用率却很低。涉及社区和医院合作的多组分戒烟干预措施有可能提高戒烟率。然而,这种干预模式的成本效益尚不清楚。
我们在中国北京的 19 个社区卫生服务中心进行了一项戒烟干预试验。从社会角度进行了成本效益分析,以比较三种戒烟策略:无干预(NI)、药物干预(PI)和综合干预(CI)(PI 加在线健康促进)。使用马尔可夫模型,时间范围为 20 年,模拟估计有 10000 名男性吸烟者的自然进展情况。通过使用五级欧洲五维健康量表(EQ-5D-5L)问卷进行横断面调查,获得成本和质量调整生命年(QALY)的数据。进行概率敏感性分析以探索模型中参数的不确定性。
共有 680 名参与者纳入本研究,其中 PI 组 283 名,CI 组 397 名。经过 6 个月的随访,CI 组的戒烟率达到 30.0%,PI 组为 21.2%。使用马尔可夫模型,与 NI 组相比,PI 组和 CI 组的干预策略被认为是具有成本效益的,增量成本效益比(ICER)分别为 535.62 美元/QALY 和 366.19 美元/QALY。概率敏感性分析表明,CI 策略始终是最具成本效益的干预措施。
在中国,以医院和社区为基础的戒烟综合干预措施比单独的 PI 更具成本效益。因此,应考虑将这种戒烟模式应用于医疗保健环境中。