Research and Critical Analysis

Student Name

University

Professor

Course

Date

The Effects of Smoking on Lung Cancer Rates among Adults in New York

This literature study aims to synthesize the results of three studies into a coherent picture of the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening with and without smoking cessation therapies. With an acknowledged cost-effectiveness criterion of $109,000 per QALY gained, the first research by Villanti et al. (2013) revealed that yearly repeat lung cancer tests in a high-risk cohort of individuals aged 50–64 were very cost-effective. A second research by Sharma et al. (2018) demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of the screening was enhanced by an increase in the Care quality saved when smoking cessation therapies were linked with the yearly screening program. Thirdly, O'Keeffe et al. (2018) observed that the impact of smoking on lung cancer risk is the same in both sexes.

Compare and Contrast

1. What articles have similarities in each section below?

Methodology

Villanti et al . (2013), Sharma et al.(2018), and O'Keeffe et al. (2018) employed qualitative research methodologies to analyze the feasibility of lung cancer screening and the paybacks of incorporating smoking cessation therapies. Specifically, the authors utilized data from the NHIS to assess the utility cost of annual, recurrent LDCT examinations for the previous 15 years within an imagined significant population of 18 million persons aged above 50 to 64 years. They also utilized data from the NYC taxpayer databases to analyze the cancer therapy expenses. The researchers of all three studies did their study between 2012 through 2018, respectively. Villanti et al . (2013) and Sharma et al.(2018) both utilized data from the NHIS, whereas O'Keeffe et al. (2018) used statistics from Smokers Quitline in New York.

Findings

 Smoking is a significant cause of lung cancer, according to studies by Villanti et al. (2013), Sharma et al. (2018), and O'Keeffe et al. (2018). The researchers of all three studies concluded that lung screening test reduces the chance of lung cancer mortality. They also discovered that quitting smoking programs may boost the financial efficiency of lung cancer screenings.

Recommendation

For persons aged 50 to 64 who have smoked for more than 30 pack-years, yearly lung cancer screening is advised by Villanti et al. (2013), Sharma et al. (2018), and O'Keeffe et al. (2018). Additionally, they conclude that when combined with tobacco cessation therapies, lung screening test is even more cost-effective. It is specifically suggested in the Villanti et al. (2013) and Sharma et al. (2018) study that smoking cessation therapies be coupled with yearly lung cancer testing to increase the cost-effectiveness of the screening program. Similar findings are drawn in the study of O'Keeffe et al. (2018) that quitting smoking is crucial for lowering lung cancer-related morbidity and death.

2. What articles have differences in each section below?

Methodology

While Sharma et al. (2018) utilized a randomized experiment to examine the efficacy of a quitline versus brochures in encouraging lung cancer tests, Villanti et al. (2013) used a simulation model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of testing for lung cancer. The link between smoke and lung cancer risk in both men and women was investigated in the research by O'Keeffe et al. (2018) using data across 99 prospective studies. Villanti et al. (2013) and Sharma et al. (2018) focussed on the expenditure in ldct and the benefits of incorporating smoking cessation programs, respectively. O'Keeffe et al. (2018) assessed the gender disparities in lung cancer and cigarette smoking connection. While Sharma et al. (2018) and O'Keeffe et al. (2018) selected their respondents from New York State, Villanti et al. (2013) recruited their study subjects from the United States.

Findings

According to the results of all three studies, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer in both sexes. However, the researchers of the O'Keeffe et al. (2018) study concluded that there was no proof that women were at a higher risk of developing lung cancer from smoking than males. According to Villanti et al. (2013), including smoking cessation measures in the routine screening program boosted the disorder's cost-effectiveness by 40–45%. The study's authors considered the instructional booklet to be an efficient and cost-effective method of disseminating information about lung cancer screening ( Sharma et al.,2018).

Recommendations

According to research published in 2013 by Villanti et al., adults aged 50–64 who have smoked for 30 or more pack-years should be screened for lung cancer every year. According to Sharma et al. (2018), individuals who smoke and receive LCS should get smoking cessation therapy. According to O'Keeffe et al. (2018), tobacco control programs that discourage both sexes from smoking while simultaneously enticing people to give up the habit should continue to be a top focus.

References

Villanti, A. C., Jiang, Y., Abrams, D. B., & Pyenson, B. S. (2013). A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions. PloS one, 8(8), e71379.

Sharma, A., Bansal-Travers, M., Celestino, P., Fine, J., Reid, M. E., Hyland, A., & O’Connor, R. (2018). Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening. American journal of health behavior, 42(6), 85-100

O’Keeffe, L. M., Taylor, G., Huxley, R. R., Mitchell, P., Woodward, M., & Peters, S. A. (2018). Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMJ open, 8(10), e021611.

Reference

O’Keeffe, L. M., Taylor, G., Huxley, R. R., Mitchell, P., Woodward, M., & Peters, S. A. (2018). Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMJ open,  8(10), e021611.

New Research Article 1

Who: The assessment of cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the paybacks on integrating smoking cessation interventions was performed by Villanti et al.

Why: This study aimed to assess whether LDCT screening for lung cancer among commercially insured individuals between 50 and 64 years at high risk for this disorder is turning out to be cost-effective. The authors also strived to quantify the extra payback of integrating smoking cessation solutions within lung cancer screening programs.

When: The authors analyzed their study in 2012 assuming that all existing smokers and half of the prior smoker population aged between 50 and 64 years were eligible for screening, with the minimum being set at least thirty packs –years of smoking.

Where: The researchers used data from National Health Interview Survey on cigarette smoking conditions for individuals between 45 and 64 years who were making 30% of active smokers across the United States at the time. The cancer treatment costs were acquired from New York's taxpayer database, which provided information including physician, hospital, drug and ancillary costs eligible for insurer reimbursement.

How: The authors used qualitative research methods to build up on the prior simulation model to determine the utility cost of yearly, recurring LDCT screenings for the last 15 years within an assumed high-risk population of 18 million adults aged between 50 and 64 years. It specifically involved those who have consumed over 30 packs within their smoking history. The authors' findings indicate that the recurring yearly lung cancer screening within the high-risk population has been effective. Providing smoking cessation strategies within the yearly screening program has increased the cost-effectiveness of the disorder by between 40 and 45%.

New Research Article 2

Who: The study on Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening was performed by Sharma et al.

Why: The goal of their study was to compare two alternatives to dispense information concerning lung cancer screening. This included a quitline, a mailed brochure pinned with in-depth messaging facilitated by a quitline coach. Therefore, the authors focused on assessing the strategy that will be effective and have a significant impact on the participants searching for information about lung cancer screening. The authors thus hypothesized that the individuals who received the brochure would report having spoken to their insurance company or physician and compare it to those who only received the brochure and made no contact.

When: The authors recruited their research participants in 2018

Where: The target population came from residents residing in New York State but outside Niagara and Erie counties.

How: The authors performed a randomized trial involving New York State Smokers Quitline respondents to determine the impact of disseminating a brochure comprising information on benefits, risks and costs related to lung cancer screening compared to a brochure supplemented with phone-based and in-depth messaging. The research findings identified that the educational brochure was an effective and affordable strategy for dispensing information regarding lung cancer screening.

References

Sharma, A., Bansal-Travers, M., Celestino, P., Fine, J., Reid, M. E., Hyland, A., & O’Connor, R. (2018). Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening.  American journal of health behavior,  42(6), 85-100.

Villanti, A. C., Jiang, Y., Abrams, D. B., & Pyenson, B. S. (2013). A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions.  PloS one,  8(8), e71379.