MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost-Effectiveness of Four Financial Incentive Programs for Smoking Cessation

2021· article· en· W3162614670 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsIncentiveAbstinenceSmoking cessationPaymentHealth careIncentive programCost–benefit analysisHealth economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale A trial of four financial incentive programs, conducted at CVS Caremark, a large employer, documented their effectiveness in promoting sustained abstinence from smoking, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown, and the significant up-front cost of the incentives is a deterrent to their adoption. Objectives To determine the cost-effectiveness of these incentives from the healthcare sector and employer perspectives. Methods This study examines a decision model built with trial data, supplemented by data from the literature. Life-expectancy gains for quitters were projected on the basis of U.S. life tables. The two individual-oriented programs paid $800 for smoking cessation at 6 months; one required participants to deposit $150 at baseline. Payments in the two group-oriented programs varied with the group’s success; again, one required participants to deposit $150. Results Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2012 dollars), and cost-effectiveness ratios are described. From the healthcare sector perspective, costs ranged from $3,200 per life-year ($2,500 per QALY) for the competitive deposit program, compared with usual care, to $6,500 per life-year ($5,100 per QALY) for the individual reward program. From the employer perspective, costs ranged from $256,600 per life-year gained for the individual deposit program to $1,711,100 per life-year gained for the individual reward program; the cost per QALY ranged from $65,300 for the competitive deposit program to $128,800 for the individual reward program. Cost-effectiveness from the employer perspective improved with longer decision horizons. Including future medical costs reduced cost-effectiveness from both perspectives. Conclusions Four financial incentive programs that paid smokers to quit are very cost-effective from the healthcare sector perspective. They are more expensive from the employer perspective but may be cost-effective for employers with longer decision horizons.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207