This study is the first to provide a theoretical framework to understand differences in beliefs between stakeholders who do or do not intend to use economic decision-support tools, and empirically corroborating the framework. This contributes to our understanding of the facilitators and barriers to the uptake of these studies.

BackgroundThe European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) project aimed to study transferability of economic evidence by co-creating the Tobacco Return On Investment (ROI) tool, previously developed in the United Kingdom, for four sample countries (Germany, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands). The EQUIPT tool provides policymakers and stakeholders with customized information about the economic and wider returns on the investment in evidence-based tobacco control, including smoking cessation interventions. A Stakeholder Interview Survey was developed to engage with the stakeholders in early phases of the development and country adaptation of the ROI tool. The survey assessed stakeholders’ information needs, awareness about underlying principles used in economic analyses, opinion about the importance, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tobacco control interventions, and willingness to use a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) tool such as the ROI tool.MethodsA cross sectional study using a mixed method approach was conducted among participating stakeholders in the sample countries and the United Kingdom. The individual questionnaire contained open-ended questions as well as single choice and 7- or 3-point Likert-scale questions. The results corresponding to the priority and needs assessment and to the awareness of stakeholders about underlying principles used in economic analysis are analysed by country and stakeholder categories.ResultsStakeholders considered it important that the decisions on the investments in tobacco control interventions should be supported by scientific evidence, including prevalence of smoking, cost of smoking, quality of life, mortality due to smoking, and effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of smoking cessation interventions. The proposed ROI tool was required to provide this granularity of information. The majority of the stakeholders were aware of the general principles of economic analyses used in decision making contexts but they did not appear to have in-depth knowledge about specific technical details. Generally, stakeholders’ answers showed larger variability by country than by stakeholder category.ConclusionsStakeholders across different European countries viewed the use of HTA evidence to be an important factor in their decision-making process. Further, they considered themselves to be capable of interpreting the results from a ROI tool and were highly motivated to use it.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0110-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

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.

Background Several meta-analyses demonstrated the efficacy of unilateral High-Frequency Left-sided (HFL) repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for individuals with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); however, results are contradictory due to heterogeneity of the included studies. Methods A systematic literature review (SLR) of English language articles published since 2000 was performed in March 2022 on PubMed and Scopus databases. Empirical evidence on the relative efficacy of rTMS treatment compared with standard pharmacotherapy in Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD) were extracted. Random effects models were used to assess the effects of rTMS on response and remission rates. Results 19 randomized double-blinded sham-controlled studies were included for quantitative analysis for response (n = 854 patients) and 9 studies for remission (n = 551 patients). The risk ratio (RR) for response and remission are 2.25 and 2.78, respectively for patients after two treatment failures using rTMS as add-on treatment compared to standard pharmacotherapy. Cochrane’s Q test showed no significant heterogeneity. No publication bias was detected. Conclusions rTMS is significantly more effective than sham rTMS in TRD in response and remission outcomes and may be beneficial as an adjunctive treatment in patients with MDD after two treatment failures. This finding is consistent with previous meta-analyses; however, the effect size was smaller than in the formerly published literature.