Economic Evaluation Report: 'Friends Quit' Smoking Cessation Program

This report presents an economic evaluation of the 'Friends Quit' smoking cessation program, specifically focusing on its cost-effectiveness in India. The evaluation considers the high prevalence of tobacco use among the impoverished population and the associated healthcare costs. The report outlines the parameters of the evaluation, including the target population (women of all ages), the intervention's design (friendship pairs), and the comparison of costs with other cessation methods like counseling. It analyzes data from previous studies, such as the cost-effectiveness of incentivized quitting and telephone counseling, to support the conclusion that the 'Friends Quit' program offers a cost-effective approach to smoking cessation. The report emphasizes the importance of economic research agendas to sustain tobacco control programs and highlights the potential for reducing healthcare costs through this intervention. The evaluation framework includes a cost-effectiveness analysis, the collection and valuation of clinical intervention costs in U.S. Dollars, and the handling of uncertainties to ensure representative results. The report concludes that the 'Friends Quit' program is a more cost-effective method compared to other interventions.

Smoking Cessation 1
SMOKING CESSATION
Student’s Name
Course Title
Name of Instructor
School
Date

Smoking Cessation 2
Smoking Cessation
Introduction
In India, there is a well-documented connection between poverty and smoking of
tobacco. Regardless, tobacco smoking control measures have been deployed without considering
the high-risk population. Approximately 3000 million Indians live in abject poverty (Mohan,
Lando and Panneer 2018, p. 4). Of the total population of India, nearly 28.6% are tobacco
smokers (Mohan, Lando and Panneer 2018, p. 4). The use of tobacco among the poor and the
aggravation of poverty because of smoking-related infections are conspicuous in India. The costs
of healthcare involve both medical costs and mortality and morbidity costs (Leão, Kunst and
Perelman 2017, p. 40). Given the middle-income level of India, treatment for tobacco-related
infections is always out of hand. Besides, there are pronounced health and socio-economical
inequalities. Smoking-related diseases are the primary cause of poverty in India. Economic
evaluation is significant in measuring, evaluating, and comparing costs (Leão, Kunst and
Perelman 2017, p. 40). Despite the numerous control programs which are essential, there has
been continuous use of tobacco. This report aims at helping smoking control advocates,
researchers, and decision-makers in establishing economic research agendas that sustain tobacco
control programs.
Parameters
This evaluation will check the cost-effectiveness of tobacco smoking cessation among
women of all ages in India. The cost-effective analysis seeks to determine the cost-effectiveness
of programs and initiatives. This intervention is Important since it will cut down the costs of
running smoking cessation programs. The cost of clinical interventions will be collected and

Smoking Cessation 3
converted into U.S. Dollars as a standard measure using the current currency valuations. This
will be compared with the proposed costs of the project under evaluation. The data for this
evaluation will be extracted from previous studies and compared to the proposed initiative. More
importantly, this intervention is India- based; therefore, it will seek to evaluate smoking control
in India. The program aims to involve 900 smokers in the initiative. Uncertainties will be
handled by ensuring that the comparison of results is representative.
Cost-effective Evaluation
The Friends Quit – friendship pairs to help women quit smoking program is a multi-
faceted one-year community-based initiative that seeks to assist different aged women to stop the
habit of smoking. It deploys a nonrandomized approach. The program employs a supportive
approach that pairs individuals to help them quit smoking. On average, it will cost £50 to cause
one woman to cease smoking. This compares to other interventions such as counseling or
rehabilitation, which might consume up to £100 in a year. Mundt MP et al. (2018) conducted an
economic analysis in a randomized control trial that incentivized tobacco quitting (p. 177-184).
They determined that the costs decreased to approximately $2316 compared to $2600 when other
methods such as varenicline and telephone counseling are used. Rasmussen (2013) studied the
“cost-effectiveness of telephone counseling to help in the cessation of smoking in Denmark”
(p.4-10). He determined that compared to other interventions used in Denmark, telephone
counseling aimed at curtailing the habit of smoking is cost-effective. From these studies, it is
apparent that telephone counseling, coupled with incentivizing cessation of smoking cuts many
costs and is thus affordable.
Conclusion

Smoking Cessation 4
The bottom line is that many initiatives have been deployed to curb smoking. However,
many of them are less cost-effective. It is clear that the mechanism implemented by the 'Friends
Quit – friendship pairs to help women quit smoking’ is a cost-effective method. This compares to
other interventions that have been used over time.

Smoking Cessation 5
References
Leão, T., Kunst, A.E. and Perelman, J., 2017. Cost-effectiveness of tobacco control policies and
programmes targeting adolescents: a systematic review. The European Journal of Public
Health, 28(1), pp.39-43.
Mohan, P., Lando, H.A. and Panneer, S., 2018. Assessment of tobacco consumption and control
in India. Indian Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9, p.1179916118759289.
Mundt, M.P., Baker, T.B., Fraser, D.L., Smith, S.S., Piper, M.E. and Fiore, M.C., 2019. Paying
low-income smokers to quit? the cost-effectiveness of Incentivizing tobacco quit line
engagement for Medicaid recipients who smoke. Value in Health, 22(2), pp.177-184.
Rasmussen, S.R., 2013. The cost effectiveness of telephone counselling to aid smoking cessation
in Denmark: a modelling study. Scandinavian journal of public health, 41(1), pp.4-10.