Cost-Utility Analysis of the National truth® Campaign to Prevent Youth Smoking
Cost-Utility Analysis of the National truth® Campaign to Prevent Youth Smoking
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.020
复制
发表时间：
2009-05-01
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Healton, Cheryl G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Holtgrave, David R.;Wunderink, Katherine A.;Healton, Cheryl G.
背景：2005年，《美国公共卫生杂志》发表了一篇文章，指出1999年至2002年间青少年吸烟率总体下降的22%直接归因于2000年发起的truth (R)社会营销活动。关于真相运动剩下的一个关键问题是，对该计划的经济投资是否能被公共卫生结果所证明；这个问题在这里进行检验。方法：按照美国卫生和医药成本效益委员会的标准，采用成本和成本效用分析的标准方法；采用了社会视角。结果：在2000-2002年期间，用于发展、实施、评估和诉讼真相运动的支出总额刚刚超过3.24亿美元。基本情况下的成本-效用分析结果表明，该运动节省了成本；它。据估计，该运动收回了成本，为社会避免了近19亿美元的医疗费用。敏感性分析表明，该活动的成本效益的基本确定对输入参数的实质性变化是稳健的。结论：这项研究表明，真相运动不仅显著改善了公众的健康，而且以经济有效的方式做到了这一点。[J]中华预防医学杂志，2009;36(5):385-388
Background: In 2005, the American journal of Public Health published an article that indicated that 22% of the overall decline in youth smoking that occurred between 1999 and 2002 was directly attributable to the truth (R) social marketing campaign launched in 2000. A remaining key question about the truth campaign is whether the economic investment in the program can be justified by the public health outcomes; that question is examined here.Methods: Standard methods of cost and cost-utility analysis were employed in accordance with the U.S. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine; a societal perspective was employed.Results: During 2000-2002, expenditures totaled just over $324 million to develop, deliver, evaluate, and litigate the truth campaign. The base-case cost-utility analysis result indicates that the campaign was cost saving; it. is estimated that the campaign recouped its costs and that just under $1.9 billion in medical costs was averted for society. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the basic determination of cost effectiveness for this campaign is robust to substantial variation in input parameters.Conclusions: This Study suggests that the truth campaign not only markedly improved the public's health but did so in an economically efficient manner. (Am J Prev Med 2009;36(5):385-388) (c) 2009 American Journal, of Preventive Medicine