Understanding perceived availability and importance of tobacco control interventions to inform European adoption of a UK economic model: a cross-sectional study

Table 5 A head-to-head comparison of selected tobacco-control interventions when ranked by stakeholders’ views and existing cost-effectiveness evidence

Intervention	Mean importance score^a	Rank by mean importance score	Rank by cost-effectiveness^b	Median cost/QALY (£)^b	Comparator^b	Range^b
Individual counselling by specially trained professionals with medication (e.g. NRT or bupropion)	1.86	1	1	Dominates^c	Background quit rate	NA
Group counselling by specially trained professionals with medication (e.g. NRT or bupropion)	1.81	2	1	Dominates^c	Background quit rate	NA
Nicotine replacement therapy	1.74	3	1	Dominates^c	Background quit rate (no intervention)	NA
Brief advice on smoking cessation given during one general-practitioner consultation	1.70	4	6	732	Background quit rate	577–1677
Mass media campaigns	1.53	5	2	49	Background quit rate	NA
Brief advice by a general practitioner and medication	1.44	6	7	2110	Background quit rate	1664–4833
Stage-based interventions	1.39	7	8	3033	No intervention (aggregate of controls)	NA
Telephone counselling	1.36	8	4	427	Usual care or intervention but no telephone counselling	139–1602
Community pharmacy-based services	1.22	9	5	546	Usual care	438–655
Self-help manuals with brief advice (5 min)	1.08	10	3	370^b	Background quit rate	292–847
Kendall rank correlation coefficient evaluating the association between the two rankings = 0.40; p-value = 0.11; 95% CI = [−0.09, 0.89])

^aCalculated using stakeholders’ responses on a 3-point Likert scale, ^bSourced from Owen et al. (2011), ^cImplies intervention is less costly with more benefit

ISSN: 1472-6963