TY - JOUR
AU1 - Rasu,, Rafia
AU2 - Thelen,, Joanie
AU3 - Agbor Bawa,, Walter
AU4 - Goggin,, Kathy
AU5 - Bradley-Ewing,, Andrea
AU6 - Catley,, Delwyn
AB - Abstract Objectives This study used data from a randomized-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of Motivational Interviewing (MI) relative to health education (HE) and brief advice(BA) to encourage quit attempts and cessation in order to determine their relative cost-effectiveness. Methods Urban community residents (N=255) with low desire to quit smoking were randomized to MI, HE, or BA which differed in communication style and/or number of treatment sessions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to compare the intensive interventions (MI and HE) to BA for facilitating quit attempts and smoking cessation. Costs were calculated from the perspective of an agency that might engage in program delivery. Sensitivity-analysis examined different assumptions for MI training and pharmacotherapy costs. Results Total intervention delivery time costs per participant for MI, HE and BA were $46.63, $42.87 and $2.4, respectively. Cost-effectiveness ratios per quit attempt at 24-weeks were $380 for MI, $272 for HE, and $209 for BA. The cost per additional quit attempt for MI and HE relative to BA was $508 and $301, respectively. The cost per additional quit for MI and HE and relative to BA was $2,030 and $752, respectively. Four separate sensitivity-analyses conducted in our study did not change the conclusion the HE had a lower Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for both quit attempts and cessation. Conclusions HE was the most cost-effective of the three types of smoking-cessation induction therapies and therefore may be preferable for smokers who are less motivated to quit. Providing valuable cost information in choosing different clinical methods for motivating smokers to quit. Implications All direct costs and activity-based time costs associated with delivering the intervention were analyzed from the perspective of an agency that may wish to replicate these strategies. A randomized-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of Motivational Interviewing (MI) relative to health education (HE) and brief advice (BA) to encourage quit attempts and cessation determined their relative cost-effectiveness. Health education was the most cost-effective of the three types of smoking-cessation induction therapies and therefore may be preferable. Despite guideline recommendations, motivational interviewing may not be the best approach to encourage quit attempts in diverse populations. Rather, a structured, intensive health education intervention might be the most cost-effective alternative. This content is only available as a PDF. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Motivational Interviewing to Encourage Quit Attempts among Smokers not ready to Quit: A Trial-Based Economic Analysis
JF - Nicotine and Tobacco Research
DO - 10.1093/ntr/ntz228
DA - 2004-01-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/motivational-interviewing-to-encourage-quit-attempts-among-smokers-not-GSp8xcRJHE
SP - 1
VL - Advance Article
IS - 
DP - DeepDyve
ER -