American journal of preventive medicine
-
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) on preventive services can shape policy and help patients, their providers, and public health practitioners select regimens and programs for disease prevention. Patients and providers need information about the relative effectiveness of various regimens they may choose. Decision makers need information about the relative effectiveness of various programs to offer or recommend. ⋯ Examples illustrate how effective screening regimens may not result in effective screening programs and how measures can vary across subgroups and settings. Both regimen and program relative effectiveness measures assess benefits of prevention services in real-world settings, but each addresses different scientific and policy questions. As the body of CER grows, a common lexicon for various measures of relative effectiveness becomes increasingly important to facilitate communication and shared understanding among researchers, healthcare providers, patients, and policymakers.
-
Smokers may react to cigarette excise tax increases by engaging in price-minimization strategies (i.e., finding ways to reduce the cost of cigarette smoking) rather than by quitting or reducing their cigarette use, thereby reducing the public health benefits of such tax increases. ⋯ Cigarette price-minimization strategies are practiced widely among current smokers, and resulting price reductions are relatively large. Policies that decrease opportunities to effectively apply cigarette price-minimization strategies would increase the public health gains of cigarette excise tax increases.