Cost-Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing for Smoking Cessation and Relapse Prevention Among Low-Income Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Value in Health, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 191-198, July 2007

8 Pages Posted: 24 Dec 2007 Last revised: 3 Nov 2008

See all articles by Jennifer Prah Ruger

Jennifer Prah Ruger

University of Pennsylvania - School of Social Policy & Practice; University of Pennsylvania - Perelman School of Medicine

Milton Weinstein

Harvard University

Katharine Hammond

University of California, Berkeley - School of Public Health

Margaret H. Kearney

University of Rochester - School of Nursing

Karen M. Emmons

Harvard University - T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Kaiser Permanente

Abstract

Objectives: Low-income women have high rates of smoking during pregnancy, but little is known about the costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI), focused on the medical and psychosocial needs of this population, as an intervention for smoking cessation and relapse prevention.

Methods: A sample of 302 low-income pregnant women was recruited from multiple obstetrical sites in the Boston metropolitan area into a randomized controlled trial of a motivational intervention for smoking cessation and relapse prevention versus usual care (UC). The findings of this clinical trial were used to estimate the costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from a societal perspective, incorporating published quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY) estimates. Outcomes included smoking cessation and relapse, maternal and infant outcomes, economic costs, LYs and QALYs saved, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results: The cost-effectiveness of MI for relapse prevention compared to UC was estimated to be $851/LY saved and $628/QALY saved. Including savings in maternal medical costs in sensitivity analyses resulted in cost savings for MI for relapse prevention compared to UC. For smoking cessation, MI cost more but did not provide additional benefit compared to UC. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness of MI versus UC would have been $117,100/LY saved and $86,300/QALY saved if 8% of smokers had quit. In two-way sensitivity analyses, MI was still relatively cost-effective for relapse prevention ($17,300/QALY saved) even if it cost as much as $2000/participant and was less effective. For smoking cessation, however, a higher level of effectiveness (9/110) and higher cost ($400/participant) resulted in higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($112,000/QALY).

Conclusions: Among low-income pregnant women, MI helps prevent relapse at relatively low cost, and may be cost-saving when net medical cost savings are considered. For smoking cessation, MI cost more but provided no additional benefit compared to UC, but might offer benefits at costs comparable to other clinical preventive interventions if 8-10% of smokers are induced to quit.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness, low-income, pregnant women, relapse prevention, smoking cessation

JEL Classification: I1, I12

Suggested Citation

Prah Ruger, Jennifer and Weinstein, Milton and Hammond, Katharine and Kearney, Margaret H. and Emmons, Karen M., Cost-Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing for Smoking Cessation and Relapse Prevention Among Low-Income Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Value in Health, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 191-198, July 2007, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1078262

Jennifer Prah Ruger (Contact Author)

University of Pennsylvania - School of Social Policy & Practice ( email )

3701 Locust Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6214
United States

University of Pennsylvania - Perelman School of Medicine

423 Guardian Drive
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States

Milton Weinstein

Harvard University ( email )

1875 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Katharine Hammond

University of California, Berkeley - School of Public Health ( email )

50 University Hall #7360
Berkeley, CA 94720-7360
United States

Margaret H. Kearney

University of Rochester - School of Nursing ( email )

Helen Wood Hall
601 Elmwood Ave
Rochester, NY 14642
United States

Karen M. Emmons

Harvard University - T.H. Chan School of Public Health ( email )

677 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA MA 02115
United States

Kaiser Permanente ( email )

CA
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
153
Abstract Views
1,828
Rank
345,594
PlumX Metrics