Smoking, health related quality of life and economic evaluation

Background and aims The economic evaluation of tobacco control policies requires the adoption of assumptions about the impact of changes in smoking status on health related quality of life (HRQOL). Estimates for such impacts are necessary for different populations. This paper aims to test whether smoking status has an independent effect on HRQOL over and above the effect derived from the increased likelihood of suffering a tobacco related disease and to calculate utility values for the Spanish population. Methods Using data from the Spanish Encuesta Nacional de Salud of 2011-12, we estimate statistical models for HRQOL as measured by the EQ5D5L instrument as a function of smoking status. We include a comprehensive set of controls for biological clinical, lifestyle and socioeconomic characteristics. Results Smoking status has an independent, statistically significant effect on HRQOL. However, the size of the effect is small. The typical smoking related disease, such as lung cancer, is associated to a reduction in HRQOL about 5 times larger than the difference between current smokers and never smokers. Conclusion A realistic representation of the effects of smoking on HRQOL in economic evaluation should shy away from attributing large independent changes to quitting smoking or avoiding starting to smoke, since such changes are small once clinical conditions are controlled for. On the other hand, it is necessary to expand the set of classical smoking related diseases used in economic evaluation with other diseases for which new evidence showing a causal link to smoking exists.The authors are very grateful to Dr. Toni Mora for his invaluable help and support to finish this paper. This work was partially funded by the European Union’s FP7 program (The EQUIPT Project; grant agreement 602270) and partially by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) under the programme "Programa Estatal de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Orientada a los Retos de la Sociedad, Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica Técnica y de Innovación 2013-2016”. Grant ECO2013- 48217-C2-1 (http://invesfeps.ulpgc.es/en). The funders had no influence in the conduction of this study or the drafting of this manuscript

Increasing Cervical Cancer Screening Coverage: A randomised, Community-Based Clinical Trial

Altres ajuts: The project received a research grant from the Carlos III Institute of Health, Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain), awarded on the 2010 call under the Health Strategy Action 2013-16, within the National Research Program oriented to Societal Challenges within the Technical, Scientific and Innovation Research National Plan 2013-16 with reference PI10/01275 co-funded with European Union ERDF funds. Additional support was provided by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), public grants from the Carlos III Institute of Health (RTIC RD06/0020/0095 RD12/0036/0056 and CIBERESP) and the Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (grants AGAUR 2014SGR1077 and 2014SGR2016) and the Primary Health Care Unit IDIAP Jordi Gol and the Catalan Institute of Health resolved 07/04/2014.Background. Opportunistic cervical cancer screening can lead to suboptimal screening coverage. Coverage could be increased after a personalised invitation to the target population. We present a community randomized intervention study with three strategies aiming to increase screening coverage.Methods. The CRICERVA study is a community-based clinical trial to improve coverage of population based screening in the Cerdanyola SAP area in Barcelona.A total of 32,858 women residing in the study area, aged 30 to 70 years were evaluated. A total of 15,965 women were identified as having no registration of a cervical cytology in the last 3.5 years within the Public Health data base system. Eligible women were assigned to one of four community randomized intervention groups (IGs): (1) (IG1 N = 4197) personalised invitation letter, (2) (IG2 N =3601) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet, (3) (IG3 N = 6088) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet + personalised phone call and (4) (Control N = 2079) based on spontaneous demand of cervical cancer screening as officially recommended. To evaluate screening coverage, we used heterogeneity tests to compare impact of the interventions and mixed logistic regression models to assess the age effect. We refer a ªrescueº visit as the screening visit resulting from the study invitation. Results. Among the 13,886 women in the IGs, 2,862 were evaluated as having an adequate screening history after the initial contact; 4,263 were lost to follow-up and 5,341 were identified as having insufficient screening and thus being eligible for a rescue visit. All intervention strategies significantly increased participation to screening compared to the control group. Coverage after the intervention reached 84.1% while the control group reached 64.8%. The final impact of our study was an increase of 20% in the three IGs and of 9% in the control group (p<0.001). Within the intervention arms, age was an important determinant of rescue visits showing a statistical interaction with the coverage attained in the IGs. Within the intervention groups, final screening coverage was significantly higher in IG3 (84.4%) (p<0.001). However, the differences were more substantial in the age groups 50±59 and those 60+. The highest impact of the IG3 intervention was observed among women 60+ y.o with 32.0% of them being rescued for screening. The lowest impact of the interventions was in younger women.Conclusions. The study confirms that using individual contact methods and assigning a fixed screening date notably increases participation in screening. The response to the invitation is strongly dependent on age

Evaluación de los programas para disminuir el consumo de alcohol en España: Un tema pendiente

Background: To evaluate preventive interventions on alcohol consumption has been long recommended in Spain. The impact evaluation of structured programs and specific actions for the prevention and treatment of alcohol consumption (PAPTCA) would allow making better informed decisions on public health financing based on the efficiency criteria. To the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific document that illustrates the situation of the PAPTCAs’ evaluation in Spain. This paper aims to classify and describe PAPTCAs in Spain, focused on their impact evaluation and information on financing for accountability to society. Methods: A systematic literature review of the PAPTCAs implemented in Spain, from 2000 till 2017, at regional (autonomous communities) and local level was carried out, and a descriptive analysis of the PAPTCA database obtained from the literature review was carried out. Results: 145 structured programs and 45 specific actions were identified. Only 25% of structured programs provided an impact evaluation, besides, only 15% presented some information about their financing. Regarding the specific actions, the numbers were less encouraging where 10% provided an impact evaluation while a similar figure of PAPTCAs showed financing information. Conclusions: There is a need to systematize the information of the PAPTCA that serves as an instrument to conduct impact evaluations in Spain. This should ease the scarce presence of evaluative culture in this area and promote the accountability of resources spent on public health to society.Fundamentos: Hace tiempo que se recomienda evaluar las intervenciones preventivas en España. La evaluación del impacto de los programas estructurados y de las acciones puntuales de prevención y tratamiento del consumo de alcohol (PAPTCA) permitiría tomar las decisiones de financiación mejor informadas en materia de salud pública, desde el punto de vista de la eficiencia. No obstante, no se conoce un documento que ilustre la situación de la evaluación de los PAPTCA en España. Este artículo pretendió clasificar y describir los PAPTCA en España, prestando especial atención a la evaluación de impacto y a la información sobre financiación para la rendición de cuentas. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica sistematizada de los PAPTCA implementados en España tanto a nivel regional (comunidades autónomas) como local durante el periodo 2000-2017, y se llevó a cabo un análisis descriptivo de la base de datos obtenida de los PAPTCA a partir de la revisión de la bibliografía realizada. Resultados: Se identificaron 145 programas estructurados y 45 acciones puntuales. Solo el 25% de los programas estructurados evaluaron los resultados. Además, únicamente un tercio de ellos presentaron alguna información sobre su financiación. Por su parte, los números fueron menos alentadores en las acciones puntuales, donde solo el 10% evaluaron sus resultados, y una cifra similar aportó información sobre su financiación. Conclusiones: Existe una necesidad de sistematizar la información de los PAPTCA, para que sirva de instrumento en la evaluación de su impacto en España y, de esta manera, paliar la escasa presencia de cultura evaluativa en este ámbito y promover la rendición de cuentas a la sociedad de los recursos en salud pública

Cost of passive smoking in children in Spain

Introduction To estimate the economic impact in the Spanish Healthcare System of secondhand smoking on children in Spain in 2015. Material and Methods The cost has been estimated for primary care, outpatient care and hospital admissions for Spanish population of children (0-14 years old) in 2015. The Population Attributable Fraction (PAF) has been calculated from OR's to children exposed to household smoking and the number of real events has been obtained from the Ministry of Healthcare of Spain. To estimate the cost of primary care consultations, the price by consultation has been calculated as a mean of the public prices published by all the regions of Spain. The prices for each outpatient consultation and hospital admission have been obtained from the Spanish Healthcare System. Results The attributable cost of secondhand smoking in children for the Spanish Healthcare system in 2015 was around 27M€ (27.162.048€): 19.300.383€ due to primary care, 360.360€ was spent providing outpatient care and 7.501.305€ for hospitals admissions. Conclusions The reducible percentage of the total budget of Spanish Healthcare System expended in 2015 due to children were exposed to passive smoking is around 0,041%, calculated in terms of hospital cost, outpatient care and primary care admissions. This amount could totally disappear just adopting better and stronger policies forbidding smoking in front of children. Funding European Union. Tackling secondhand tobacco smoke and e-cigarette emissions: exposure assessment, novel interventions, impact on lung diseases and economic burden in diverse European populations. The TackSHS projec

Increasing Cervical Cancer Screening Coverage: A randomised, Community-Based Clinical Trial

Altres ajuts: The project received a research grant from the Carlos III Institute of Health, Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain), awarded on the 2010 call under the Health Strategy Action 2013-16, within the National Research Program oriented to Societal Challenges within the Technical, Scientific and Innovation Research National Plan 2013-16 with reference PI10/01275 co-funded with European Union ERDF funds. Additional support was provided by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), public grants from the Carlos III Institute of Health (RTIC RD06/0020/0095 RD12/0036/0056 and CIBERESP) and the Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (grants AGAUR 2014SGR1077 and 2014SGR2016) and the Primary Health Care Unit IDIAP Jordi Gol and the Catalan Institute of Health resolved 07/04/2014.Background. Opportunistic cervical cancer screening can lead to suboptimal screening coverage. Coverage could be increased after a personalised invitation to the target population. We present a community randomized intervention study with three strategies aiming to increase screening coverage.Methods. The CRICERVA study is a community-based clinical trial to improve coverage of population based screening in the Cerdanyola SAP area in Barcelona.A total of 32,858 women residing in the study area, aged 30 to 70 years were evaluated. A total of 15,965 women were identified as having no registration of a cervical cytology in the last 3.5 years within the Public Health data base system. Eligible women were assigned to one of four community randomized intervention groups (IGs): (1) (IG1 N = 4197) personalised invitation letter, (2) (IG2 N =3601) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet, (3) (IG3 N = 6088) personalised invitation letter + informative leaflet + personalised phone call and (4) (Control N = 2079) based on spontaneous demand of cervical cancer screening as officially recommended. To evaluate screening coverage, we used heterogeneity tests to compare impact of the interventions and mixed logistic regression models to assess the age effect. We refer a ªrescueº visit as the screening visit resulting from the study invitation. Results. Among the 13,886 women in the IGs, 2,862 were evaluated as having an adequate screening history after the initial contact; 4,263 were lost to follow-up and 5,341 were identified as having insufficient screening and thus being eligible for a rescue visit. All intervention strategies significantly increased participation to screening compared to the control group. Coverage after the intervention reached 84.1% while the control group reached 64.8%. The final impact of our study was an increase of 20% in the three IGs and of 9% in the control group (p<0.001). Within the intervention arms, age was an important determinant of rescue visits showing a statistical interaction with the coverage attained in the IGs. Within the intervention groups, final screening coverage was significantly higher in IG3 (84.4%) (p<0.001). However, the differences were more substantial in the age groups 50±59 and those 60+. The highest impact of the IG3 intervention was observed among women 60+ y.o with 32.0% of them being rescued for screening. The lowest impact of the interventions was in younger women.Conclusions. The study confirms that using individual contact methods and assigning a fixed screening date notably increases participation in screening. The response to the invitation is strongly dependent on age

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer in Spain : the CRIVERVA study

The aim of the study is to carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis of three different interventions to promote the uptake of screening for cervical cancer in general practice in the county of Valles Occidental, Barcelona, Spain. Women aged from 30 to 70 years (n = 15,965) were asked to attend a general practice to be screened. They were randomly allocated to one of four groups: no intervention group (NIG); one group where women received an invitation letter to participate in the screening (IG1); one group where women received an invitation letter and informative leaflet (IG2); and one group where women received an invitation letter, an informative leaflet and a phone call reminder (IG3). Clinical effectiveness was measured as the percentage increase in screening coverage. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of the public health system with a time horizon of three to five years - the duration of the randomised controlled clinical trial. In addition, a deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results are presented according to different age groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the most cost-effective intervention, IG1, compared with opportunistic screening was € 2.78 per 1% increase in the screening coverage. The age interval with the worst results in terms of efficiency was women aged < 40 years. In a population like Catalonia, with around 2 million women aged 30 to 70 years and assuming that 40% of these women were not attending general practice to be screened for cervical cancer, the implementation of an intervention to increase screening coverage which consists of sending a letter would cost on average less than € 490 for every 1000 women. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: . The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4115-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users