A cost-utility analysis of the impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems on health care costs and outcomes in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We determined the impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) on health outcomes and costs in Canada, based on their effect on smoking cessation and smoking initiation rates. METHODS: We used gender-specific Markov models to estimate lifetime discounted life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and smoking-related health care costs for cohorts of males and females aged 15 to 19 years, in scenarios in which (1) ENDS are available (status quo); (2) ENDS are completely unavailable; and (3) ENDS are available for smoking cessation through health care provider prescription, in addition to currently recognized smoking cessation tools. Analysis was from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system. RESULTS: Outcomes are expressed per 1000 individuals and based on expected values obtained through a Monte Carlo simulation of 10 000 replications. For males aged 15 to 19 years, life years, QALYs and smoking-related health care costs were 41 553, 35 871 and CAD 79 645 964, respectively, when ENDS were available; 41 568, 35 894 and CAD 79 645 960 when ENDS were unavailable; and 41 570, 35 897 and CAD 79 605 869 when ENDS were available through prescription only. For females, life years, QALYs and smoking-related health care costs were 43 596, 37 416 and CAD 69 242 856, respectively, when ENDS were available; 43 610, 37 438 and CAD 69 085 926 when ENDS were unavailable; and 43 611, 37 438 and CAD 69 076 034 when ENDS were available through prescription only. Thus, situations in which ENDS are unavailable, or available through prescription only are dominant over the status quo. CONCLUSION: These results show that a policy change whereby ENDS were unavailable to the Canadian population or available through prescription only would likely increase population health and reduce health care costs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".