Costs for road travel were estimated at 44 pence per mile (The Automobile selleck catalog Association, 2008). Privately contracted trainers were paid up to ��200 per training day. All expenses were recorded in 2001/2002 values and inflated to 2008 values using the consumer price index (Office for National Statistics, 2009). As our analysis took a public sector decision maker viewpoint, we did not cost peer supporter time. The intervention occurred during one school year, and costs were not discounted. The ASSIST programme was explicitly an addition to (as opposed to a substitute for) the smoking prevention education currently provided by schools. The costs of other smoking prevention education were assumed to be similar in intervention and control schools and excluded from the analysis.
Outcome Assessment Smoking behavior of students in both arms of the trial was collected at baseline and at 1- and 2-year follow-up. Respondent smoking behavior was assessed using a question with six possible responses ranging from ��I have never smoked�� to ��I usually smoke more than six cigarettes a week.�� The primary outcome measure was prevalence of weekly smoking (defined as usually smoking at least one cigarette per week). Saliva samples were collected from participants at baseline and follow-up to minimize misreporting. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat, and thus, the outcome of students who changed schools was attributed to the school they were in at the start of the trial. Parents/carers of Year 8 students received information letters and a reply slip to return if they did not want their child to participate.
Students were given the option to refuse some or all the intervention activities. The Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee for Wales reviewed the trial protocol and judged it as meeting ethically acceptable standards. Effectiveness The primary effectiveness finding of the RCT, based on a multilevel model using data from all trial follow-up timepoints, was that the odds ratio (OR) for being a smoker in an intervention school when compared with a control was 0.78 (95% CI = 0.64�C0.96) as previously reported (Campbell et al., 2008). At the 1- and 2-year follow-up, the adjusted OR were 0.77 (95% CI = 0.59�C0.99 [n = 9,147]) and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.72�C1.01 [n = 8,756]), respectively(Campbell et al., 2008). In the control schools, the prevalence of weekly smokers increased from 6.
59% at Drug_discovery baseline to 15.13% at 1 year and 21.74% at 2 years. By comparison, the prevalence in the intervention schools was 4.78% (baseline), 12.49% (1 year), and 18.95% (2 years; Campbell et al., 2008) We used smoking prevalence at the 2-year follow-up, adjusted for baseline smoking status, as the primary outcome measure for the cost-effectiveness analysis. This timepoint was thought most likely to be indicative of long-term smoking behavior and health outcomes.
No related posts.