Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a work-place smoking cessation intervention with and without financial incentives.

Abstract

AimsTo perform an economic evaluation of a work‐place smoking cessation group training programme with incentives compared with a training programme without incentives.DesignA trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost–utility analysis (CUA) from a societal perspective and an employer's perspective.SettingSixty‐one companies in the Netherlands.ParticipantsA total of 604 tobacco‐smoking employees.Intervention and comparatorA 7‐week work‐place smoking cessation group training programme. The intervention group earned gift vouchers of €350 for 12 months’ continuous abstinence. The comparator group received no incentives.MeasurementsOnline questionnaires were administered to assess quality of life (EQ‐5D‐5 L) and resource use during the 14‐month follow‐up period (2‐month training period plus 12‐month abstinence period). For the CEA the primary outcome measure was carbon monoxide (CO)‐validated continuous abstinence; for the CUA the primary outcome was quality‐adjusted life years (QALY). Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) tables were used to determine cost‐effectiveness from a life‐time perspective.FindingsOf the participants in the intervention group, 41.1% had quit smoking compared with 26.4% in the control group. From a societal perspective with a 14‐month follow‐up period, the ICER per quitter for an intervention with financial incentives compared with no incentives was €11 546. From an employer's perspective, the ICER was €5686. There was no significant difference in QALYs between the intervention and control group within the 14‐month follow‐up period. The intervention was dominated by the comparator in the primary analysis at a threshold of €20 000 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, these results were uncertain. A life‐time perspective showed an ICER of €1249 (95% confidence interval = €850–2387) per QALY.ConclusionsFinancial incentives may be cost‐effective in increasing quitting smoking, particularly from a life‐time perspective.