Skip to main content

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

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

Intervention Mean importance scorea Rank by mean importance score Rank by cost-effectivenessb Median cost/QALY (£)b Comparatorb Rangeb
Individual counselling by specially trained professionals with medication (e.g. NRT or bupropion) 1.86 1 1 Dominatesc Background quit rate NA
Group counselling by specially trained professionals with medication (e.g. NRT or bupropion) 1.81 2 1 Dominatesc Background quit rate NA
Nicotine replacement therapy 1.74 3 1 Dominatesc 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 370b 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])
  1. aCalculated using stakeholders’ responses on a 3-point Likert scale, bSourced from Owen et al. (2011), cImplies intervention is less costly with more benefit