AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print May 11, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2004.040667v1
95/6/969    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Stanton A. Glantz
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ong, M.
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ong, M.
Right arrow Articles by Glantz, S. A.
©
American Journal of Public Health, 10.2105/AJPH.2004.040667

Analytic Essay Forum

Free Nicotine Replacement Therapy Programs vs Implementing Smoke-Free Workplaces: A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison

Michael Ong 1 Stanton A. Glantz 2*

1 UC San Francisco
2 University of California San Francisco

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu.


  Abstract

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of a free nicotine replacement (NRT) program with a statewide smokefree workplace policy for Minnesota. Methods: One year simulations of costs and benefits were conducted, with benefits measured by quitters generated and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: After one year, a NRT program induces 18,500 quitters at a cost of $7,020 per quitter ($4,440 per QALY) and a smokefree workplace policy induces 10,400 quitters at a cost of $799 per quitter ($506 per QALY). Smokefree workplace policies are about 8 times more cost- effective per new nonsmoker than providing free NRT. Conclusion: Smokefree workplace policies should be a funding priority for public health programs, even if the primary goal is to promote individual smoking cessation.

Key Words: Community Health, Government, Health Policy, Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Control




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval RevHome page
L. Stolzenberg and S. J. D'Alessio
Is Nonsmoking Dangerous to the Health of Restaurants? The Effect of California's Indoor Smoking Ban on Restaurant Revenues
Eval Rev, February 1, 2007; 31(1): 75 - 92.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
Minerva
BMJ, August 13, 2005; 331(7513): E374 - E374.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
Minerva
BMJ, June 4, 2005; 330(7503): 1338 - 1338.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2005 by the American Public Health Association