Smoking and absence from work: systematic review and meta‐analysis of occupational studies

Weng, Stephen; Ali, Shehzad; Leonardi‐Bee, Jo

doi:10.1111/add.12015

Cited by 88 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In England, Germany, Hungary and Spain data on the number of days lost per smoker came from the published sources 56, 57, 58, 59, whereas in the Netherlands, reports on health‐care figures were available to derive the number of lost work‐days 60. Average hourly wage was obtained in all cases through search and analysis of national databases 61, 62, 63, 64.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimates of costs for modelling return on investment from smoking cessation interventions

Trapero-Bertran

Leidl²,

Muñoz

et al. 2018

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsModelling return on investment (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires estimates of their costs and benefits. This paper describes a standardized method developed to source both economic costs of tobacco smoking and costs of implementing cessation interventions for a Europe‐wide ROI model [European study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco model (EQUIPTMOD)].DesignFocused search of administrative and published data. A standardized checklist was developed in order to ensure consistency in methods of data collection.Setting and participantsAdult population (15+ years) in Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. For passive smoking‐related costs, child population (0–15 years) was also included.MeasurementsCosts of treating smoking‐attributable diseases; productivity losses due to smoking‐attributable absenteeism; and costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions.FindingsAnnual costs (per case) of treating smoking attributable lung cancer were between €5074 (Hungary) and €52 106 (Germany); coronary heart disease between €1521 (Spain) and €3955 (Netherlands); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease between €1280 (England) and €4199 (Spain); stroke between €1829 (Hungary) and €14 880 (Netherlands). Costs (per recipient) of smoking cessation medications were estimated to be: for standard duration of varenicline between €225 (England) and €465 (Hungary); for bupropion between €25 (Hungary) and €220 (Germany). Costs (per recipient) of providing behavioural support were also wide‐ranging: one‐to‐one behavioural support between €34 (Hungary) and €474 (Netherlands); and group‐based behavioural support between €12 (Hungary) and €257 (Germany). The costs (per recipient) of delivering brief physician advice were: €24 (England); €9 (Germany); €4 (Hungary); €33 (Netherlands); and €27 (Spain).ConclusionsCosts of treating smoking‐attributable diseases as well as the costs of implementing smoking cessation interventions vary substantially across Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and England. Estimates for the costs of these diseases and interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimates of costs for modelling return on investment from smoking cessation interventions

Trapero-Bertran

Leidl²,

Muñoz

et al. 2018

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy excludes smokers because smoking has a negative effect on job performance, through decreased productivity and increased absenteeism. Recent research concludes that smokers have a 33% higher risk of absenteeism compared to nonsmokers 15 and cost private employers an additional $5,816 annually per employee. 16 Finally, although empirical studies have not found that Nicotine Free Hiring Policies reduce employment opportunities for demographic groups with higher smoking rates, this possible effect should be considered and evaluated.…”

Section: Jefferson's New Smoking Policies: Steps Toward a Healthier Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2015

PHM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cost‐effectiveness (CE) estimation is usually expressed in terms of cost per ‘quality‐adjusted’ life‐year gained, ‘disability‐adjusted’ life‐year gained or sometimes simply life‐year gained 5. In the case of smoking cessation there are financial savings; for example, from not having to treat smoking‐related illnesses, and from less time lost to sickness absence and time off work for cigarette breaks 6. This means that one can go further than estimating cost‐effectiveness from a health service perspective to making a judgement about ‘cost–benefit’ from a wider perspective (CB) 5.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimates of effectiveness and reach for ‘return on investment’ modelling of smoking cessation interventions using data from England

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsEstimating ‘return on investment’ (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires reach and effectiveness parameters for interventions for use in economic models such as the EQUIPT ROI tool (http://roi.equipt.eu). This paper describes the derivation of these parameter estimates for England that can be adapted to create ROI models for use by other countries.MethodsEstimates were derived for interventions in terms of their reach and effectiveness in: (1) promoting quit attempts and (2) improving the success of quit attempts (abstinence for at least 12 months). The sources were systematic reviews of efficacy supplemented by individual effectiveness evaluations and national surveys.FindingsQuit attempt rates were estimated to be increased by the following percentages (with reach in parentheses): 20% by tax increases raising the cost of smoking 5% above the cost of living index (100%); 10% by enforced comprehensive indoor public smoking bans (100%); 3% by mass media campaigns achieving 400 gross rating points (100%); 40% by brief opportunistic physician advice (21%); and 110% by use of a licensed nicotine product to reduce cigarette consumption (12%). Quit success rates were estimated to be increased by the following ratios: 60% by single‐form nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (5%); 114% by NRT patch plus a faster‐acting NRT (2%);124% by prescribed varenicline (5%); 60% by bupropion (1%); 100% by nortriptyline (0%), 10) 298% by cytisine (0%); 40% by individual face‐to‐face behavioural support (2%); 37% by telephone support (0.5%); 88% by group behavioural support (1%); 63% by text messaging (0.5%); and 19% by printed self‐help materials (1%). There was insufficient evidence to obtain reliable, country‐specific estimates for interventions such as websites, smartphone applications and e‐cigarettes.ConclusionsTax increases, indoor smoking bans, brief opportunistic physician advice and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking reduction can all increase population quit attempt rates. Quit success rates can be increased by provision of NRT, varenicline, bupropion, nortriptyline, cytisine and behavioural support delivered through a variety of modalities. Parameter estimates for the effectiveness and reach of these interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions.

show abstract

Smoking and absence from work: systematic review and meta‐analysis of occupational studies

Abstract: Quitting smoking appears to reduce absenteeism and result in substantial cost-savings for employers.

Cited by 88 publications

References 44 publications

Estimates of costs for modelling return on investment from smoking cessation interventions

Estimates of costs for modelling return on investment from smoking cessation interventions

Untitled

Estimates of effectiveness and reach for ‘return on investment’ modelling of smoking cessation interventions using data from England

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About