TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Utility Analysis of the National truth® Campaign to Prevent Youth Smoking
AU - Holtgrave, David R.
AU - Wunderink, Katherine A.
AU - Vallone, Donna M.
AU - Healton, Cheryl G.
N1 - Funding Information:
David R. Holtgrave gratefully acknowledges the support of this retrospective cost–utility analysis by the ALF. The other coauthors are employed at ALF.
Copyright:
Copyright 2009 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2009/5
Y1 - 2009/5
N2 - 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® 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.
AB - 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® 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64049096707&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=64049096707&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.020
DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.020
M3 - Article
C2 - 19211214
AN - SCOPUS:64049096707
SN - 0749-3797
VL - 36
SP - 385
EP - 388
JO - American journal of preventive medicine
JF - American journal of preventive medicine
IS - 5
ER -