Abstract
Objectives
To estimate the impact of smoking in the working-age Indonesian population in terms of costs, years of life, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and productivity-adjusted life years (PALYs) lost.
Methods
Life table modelling of Indonesian smokers aged 15–54 years, followed up until 55 years (retirement age). Contemporary data on demographics, all-cause mortality, population attributable fractions and prevalence of smoking were derived from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The quality of life and reduction in productivity due to smoking were derived from published sources. The analysis was repeated but with the assumption that the cohorts were non-smokers. The differences in results represented the losses incurred due to smoking. Gross domestic product (GDP) per equivalent full-time worker (US$11 765) was used for estimation of the cost of each PALY, and an annual discount rate of 3.0% was applied to all costs and outcomes.
Results
The prevalences of smoking among Indonesian working-age men and women were 67.2% and 2.16%, respectively. This study estimated that smoking caused 846 123 excess deaths, 2.9 million years of life lost (0.40%), 41.6 million QALYs lost (5.9%) and 15.6 million PALYs lost (2.3%). The total cost of productivity loss due to smoking amounted to US$183.7 billion among the working-age population followed up until retirement. Healthcare cost was predicted to be US$1.8 trillion. Over a 1-year time horizon, US$10.2 billion was lost in GDP and 117 billion was lost in healthcare costs.
Conclusion
Smoking imposes significant health and economic burden in Indonesia. The findings stress the importance of developing effective tobacco control strategies at the macro and micro levels, which would benefit the country both in terms of health and wealth.
Keywords: EPIDEMIOLOGY, HEALTH ECONOMICS, PUBLIC HEALTH
Strengths and limitations of this study.
This study used a new metric measure, ‘productivity adjusted life years’ (PALYs), to estimate the productivity burden of smoking in Indonesia.
The economic value of each PALY was equivalent to the annual gross domestic product per full-time worker.
Scenario and second-order sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the uncertainty around smoking-related inputs.
The life table modelling followed best practice recommendations.
Age-specific death rates and prevalence remained constant throughout the model time horizon.
Introduction
Smoking is one of the greatest risk factors that contribute to all non-communicable diseases. In recent times, the prevalence of smoking worldwide has decreased.1 However, the prevalence of smoking in Indonesia is still high. World Bank data show that the proportion of people aged 15 years and over who smoked cigarettes in Indonesia increased throughout the period of 2010–2016, peaking at 39.4%, which accounted for almost 103 million people.2 This high prevalence was due to the fact that smoking is introduced at a younger age, mainly through advertisements and family influences.
The healthcare costs of tobacco smoking are substantial. Data from the USA and India suggest that smoking-attributed healthcare costs range from 5.3% to 5.7% of the total health expenditure.3 4 Smoking is also associated with reduced productivity in the working-age population, due to workdays lost to ill-health (absenteeism) and reduced efficiency at work (presenteeism).3 The resulting loss of productivity can impose an economic burden on individuals, employers and governments through reduced earnings, tax revenue and gross domestic product (GDP). In Australia, the loss incurred by smoking-associated productivity reached $A338 billion (US$240 billion),5 while in Malaysia the loss reached RM275.3 billion (US$69.4 billion).6 However, these estimates were based on studies undertaken in Australia and Malaysia. Estimates of productivity loss at a population level in Indonesia is important as it will inform the case for investment in its prevention and control at the macro and micro levels.
In the present study, we sought to estimate the impact of smoking on the working Indonesian population, both in terms of years of life, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and productivity-adjusted life years (PALYs) lost due to smoking.
Method
Life table modelling
The present study used life table modelling7 with yearly cycles to estimate the health and productivity burden caused by smoking in Indonesia. Years of life, QALYs and PALYs lived were estimated for the cohort of Indonesian smokers of working age (15–54 years) followed up until 55 years of age, while passive smokers were not considered in these estimates due to paucity of data.
To estimate cumulative years of life, QALYs and PALYs lost due to smoking, the life table of Indonesian smokers of working age was first constructed, and then repeated but by assuming that the individuals were hypothetically not smokers. Probabilities of death were decreased in the latter group to reflect lesser risk of dying among non-smokers compared with smokers, while utilities and Productivity Indices (PIs) were both increased to reflect greater quality of life and productivity, respectively.
The differences in the outputs of the two life tables (one each for the ‘smoking cohort’ and the hypothetical ‘non-smoking cohort’) represented the years of life, QALYs and PALYs lost to smoking. All results were presented as discounted values, with an annual discount rate of 3.0%, as per the Indonesian Technology Assessment Committee.8
PALYs are of similar concept to QALYs, but instead of penalising years of life for time spent with reduced quality of life due to ill health, time spent with reduced work productivity was applied instead.5 9 10
Patient and public involvement
This is a modelling study, therefore patients and the public were not involved.
Data sources
Demographic profile and mortality
The demographic profile of the total Indonesian population was based on the 2017 population estimates from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME).11 The number of deaths (from all causes) in Indonesia in 2017, stratified by 5-year age groups and sex, were derived from the Global Burden of Disease Study by the IHME.12 All-cause death rates were derived for each age and sex stratum by dividing the number of all-cause deaths by the number of people within that stratum.
To estimate mortality rates for age in single years, mortality rates for each 5-year age group was first plotted against the midpoint age for that age group (eg, 22 years for age group 20–24 years), and then polynomial functions were applied to describe the relationships between age in single years and mortality risk.
Prevalence of smoking
Data on the prevalence of smoking in Indonesia were gathered from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey:13 Indonesia Report 2011.13 To estimate prevalence for age in single years, prevalence for each age group was first plotted against the midpoint age for that age group (eg, 20 years for age group 15–24 years), and then polynomial and linear functions were applied to describe the relationships between age in single years and prevalence (online supplemental appendices 1 and 2). The second step was to regroup age in single-year prevalence to an average 5-year age prevalence as per table 1. The number of people who smoked (within separate age and sex strata) was calculated by multiplying the prevalence of smokers by the total population. Please refer to online supplemental appendices 1 and 2 for more information about estimated prevalence for age in single years.
Table 1.
Key inputs used in the model simulation for the working Indonesian male and female population
| Age groups (years) Male |
Smoking prevalence (%) | Smoking (PAR%) | Cost per PALY | Smoking | Non-smoking | ||||||
| Mortality rates (%) | Utilities | Productivity Indices | Smoking-related healthcare costs | Mortality rates (%) | Utilities | Productivity Indices | Related healthcare costs | ||||
| 15–19 | 46.6 | 6.6 | 11 765 | 0.012 | 0.893 | 0.664 | 2194 | 0.011 | 0.935 | 0.677 | No cost incurred |
| 20–24 | 56.5 | 6.6 | 0.020 | 0.893 | 0.762 | 0.018 | 0.935 | 0.777 | |||
| 25–29 | 64.4 | 6.6 | 0.033 | 0.864 | 0.846 | 0.030 | 0.913 | 0.863 | |||
| 30–34 | 70.3 | 15.2 | 0.056 | 0.864 | 0.875 | 0.045 | 0.913 | 0.892 | |||
| 35–39 | 74.2 | 18.9 | 0.094 | 0.864 | 0.880 | 0.072 | 0.913 | 0.897 | |||
| 40–44 | 76.1 | 22.8 | 0.158 | 0.864 | 0.876 | 0.114 | 0.913 | 0.893 | |||
| 45–49 | 76.0 | 27.1 | 0.266 | 0.809 | 0.864 | 0.181 | 0.860 | 0.881 | |||
| 50–54 | 73.9 | 30.0 | 0.452 | 0.809 | 0.832 | 0.287 | 0.860 | 0.848 | |||
| Average | 67.2 | 22.8 | 0.136 | 0.865 | 0.825 | 0.095 | 0.911 | 0.841 | |||
| Female | |||||||||||
| 15–19 | 0.07 | 0.175 | 11 765 | 0.018 | 0.893 | 0.637 | 2194 | 0.005 | 0.935 | 0.649 | No cost incurred |
| 20–24 | 0.27 | 0.175 | 0.015 | 0.893 | 0.743 | 0.008 | 0.935 | 0.757 | |||
| 25–29 | 0.95 | 0.175 | 0.017 | 0.864 | 0.801 | 0.014 | 0.913 | 0.817 | |||
| 30–34 | 1.70 | 1.0 | 0.035 | 0.864 | 0.800 | 0.024 | 0.913 | 0.815 | |||
| 35–39 | 2.45 | 1.7 | 0.068 | 0.864 | 0.786 | 0.041 | 0.913 | 0.801 | |||
| 40–44 | 3.20 | 2.5 | 0.118 | 0.864 | 0.782 | 0.070 | 0.913 | 0.797 | |||
| 45–49 | 3.95 | 3.0 | 0.196 | 0.809 | 0.756 | 0.119 | 0.860 | 0.771 | |||
| 50–54 | 4.70 | 3.0 | 0.316 | 0.809 | 0.721 | 0.204 | 0.860 | 0.735 | |||
| Average | 2.16 | 2.2 | 0.098 | 0.865 | 0.753 | 0.061 | 0.911 | 0.768 | |||
Cost displayed in US$. Smoking PAR% for age group 15–29 years was assumed to be half of the PAR% for age 30 years.
PALY, productivity-adjusted life years; PAR%, population-attributable risk percentage.
bmjopen-2020-041832supp001.pdf (441.5KB, pdf)
Mortality among smokers and hypothetical non-smokers
Using the population-attributable risk percentage (PAR%) for smoking (the proportion of all deaths that is attributable to smoking) and prevalence of smoking for each age and sex stratum, it was possible to calculate mortality specifically for non-smokers according to the following equations:
PAR% = (Rt − Rns) / Rt
→Rt − Rns = PAR%*Rt
→Rns = Rt − PAR%*Rt
where,
PAR% = number of all deaths in a population that is attributable to smoking
Rns = risk of mortality among non-smokers
Rt = risk of mortality in the total population (comprising both smokers and non-smokers), derived from 2017 mortality data.
To estimate the mortality risk for smokers, the following formula was used:
Rt = p*Rs + (1 − p)*Rns
→p*Rs = Rt − (1− p)*Rns
→Rs = (Rt − (1−p)*Rns) / p
where
Rs = risk of mortality among smokers
p = prevalence of smoking.
Data for smoking-related PAR% in Indonesia were drawn from IHME14 for the year 2017. Sex and specific estimates of PAR% were available. To estimate PAR% for age in single years, PAR% values for each age group was first plotted against the midpoint age for that age group (eg, 32 years for age group 30–34 years), and then polynomial functions were applied to describe the relationships between age in single years and PAR% values (online supplemental appendix 3).
Quality of life and productivity
QALYs were derived from multiplication of years of life lived with age-specific and sex-specific utilities (table 1). Estimation of utility decrements due to smoking was based on a study by Jia and Lubetkin.15
The PI describes the proportional work productivity of a person (or a group of people), and ranges in value from 0 (non-productive) to 1.0 (fully productive). The product of PI and years lived are PALYs (in the same manner that the product of utilities and years lived are QALYs).
Smoking-attributable productivity loss (ie, productivity decrements) were estimated from a study by Bunn et al.16 This study estimated that smokers had more unattended days of work (absenteeism) (6.7 vs 4.4 days/year) and more days with decreased productivity during work (presenteeism) (3.2 vs 1.8 days/year) compared with non-smokers. The total working days missed in a year were quantified by combining days lost due to absenteeism and presenteeism, with smokers experiencing total missed workdays of 9.9 days/year (6.7 plus 3.2) and non-smokers experiencing total missed workdays of 6.2 days/year (4.4 plus 1.8). PIs were derived from dividing the days worked in a year (maximum working days in a year minus total missed working days) with the maximum working days in a year.
To estimate the maximum working days per year in Indonesia, the overall percentage of equivalent full-time (EFT) workers was first identified using the following formula:
Number of full-time workers + ((part-time weekly earnings/full-time weekly earnings) *number of part-time workers)
‘Labour Force Situation in Indonesia’ and ‘Income Statistics’ data from Badan Pusat Statistik in 2018,17 which estimated the number of people who worked part-time and full-time, as well as their corresponding monthly salaries in Indonesia were used to estimate EFT workers from age 15 years to 55 years. The weighted average of EFT workers across ages 15 years to 55 years in Indonesia was 83.2%. Thus, the maximum working days in a year within this age range was assumed to be 199.6 days, derived from the multiplication of 240 days (5 working days per week times 48 working weeks per year) by 83.2%.
To derive PIs for smokers and non-smokers, the number of total working days missed in a year (total days of absenteeism and presenteeism combined) was determined as a percentage of the maximum working days in a year for people aged 15 years to 55 years (199.6 days). Thus, smokers were estimated to have a PI of 0.950 ((199.6–9.9)/199.6), while the PI of non-smokers were estimated to be 0.969 ((199.6–6.2)/199.6) (table 1).
Cost of productivity loss
We assumed that the economic value of each PALY was equivalent to the annual GDP per full-time worker. This excluded the healthcare cost attributed to smoking-related illness.
The cost of each PALY was obtained by dividing the total Indonesian GDP in 2019 (US$1179 913 million or IDR16 837 358 510 million)18 with the estimated total Indonesian EFT workers from age 15–55 years in 2018 (100 289 529). Based on this, the cost of each PALY was estimated to be US$11 765 (IDR168 883 998), with an assumption that all GDP was produced by Indonesian workers aged 15–55 years (table 1). Furthermore, we have forecasted temporal trends in GDP growth within a time horizon using World Bank data, applying an average annual growth of 5.17%.19
Healthcare costs
To estimate the healthcare costs associated with smoking-related diseases, years of life lived (stratified by sex and age) were multiplied by smoking-related healthcare costs per person per year.
The total amount of smoking-related healthcare costs in Indonesia per person per year for smokers was estimated from a study by Kristina et al in 2018, using data from the year 2015.20 Healthcare costs per person per year were estimated by dividing the total healthcare spending devoted to smoking-related disease among the cohort (US$2177 million) by the number of smokers (992 330) in the cohort, which equated to US$2194 per person. It was assumed that non-smokers incurred no smoking-related healthcare costs (table 1).
Sensitivity analysis
Scenario analyses were undertaken with an assumption of reduction in the prevalence of smoking by 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%. We assessed in the model the impact of applying temporal trends in annual GDP growth, removing healthcare costs for participants aged 17–29 years and 17–34 years, respectively, and removing effect of PAR% for participants aged 17–29 years might have on the final outcomes of interest. We also performed a scenario analysis with a 1-year time horizon.
To reflect uncertainty (95% CIs) of the input parameters in the model, a number of candidate distributions were selected. To capture the uncertainty around PAR%s and utilities, we have used beta distributions, while for PIs and costs, we applied uniform and gamma distributions, respectively. For utilities and costs, the SE was assumed to be 5% and 15% of the means and estimate, respectively. We ran the simulation for 10 000 iterations to capture uncertainty in the model using the software package @Risk V.7.5 (Palisade, Ithaca, New York, USA). Detailed information is provided in appendices 4 and 5.
Results
The prevalence of smoking in the Indonesian working-age population was 34.7% (67% in men and 2.16% in women), equating to 53.4 million people (51.9 million men and 1.5 million women) between 15 years and retirement age who smoke (table 1).
Deaths
Table 2 summarises the estimated number of deaths in the smoking and the hypothetical non-smoking groups. With simulated follow-up until retirement, the smoking cohort was predicted to incur 846 123 excess deaths, (830 126 among men and 15 998 among women). Smoking-attributable deaths accounted for 12.5% (22.8% among men and 2.2% among women) of all deaths among the Indonesian working-age population.
Table 2.
Number of deaths and discounted years of life lived in the smoking cohort and in the hypothetical non-smoking cohort of Indonesians aged 15–54 years with simulated follow-up until 55 years. Deaths in the smoking and non-smoking cohorts are presented based on age entering the simulation
| Five-year age group | Population | Number of smokers | Deaths in smoking cohort | Deaths in non-smoking cohort | Excess deaths* | *YLL in smoking cohort | YLL in non-smoking cohort | Years of life lost* | %Smoker† |
| Male | |||||||||
| 15–19 | 11 615 900 | 5419 979 | 318 805 | 220 033 | 98 772 | 126 123 437 | 126 408 651 | 285 214 | 0.2% |
| 20–24 | 10 477 601 | 5926 131 | 344 404 | 236 847 | 107 557 | 127 565 545 | 127 914 286 | 348 741 | 0.3% |
| 25–29 | 10 307 565 | 6644 256 | 378 480 | 258 567 | 119 914 | 129 648 743 | 130 083 628 | 434 885 | 0.3% |
| 30–34 | 10 433 650 | 7341 116 | 404 010 | 273 264 | 130 747 | 126 211 904 | 126 729 758 | 517 854 | 0.4% |
| 35–39 | 10 339 840 | 7678 365 | 397 418 | 265 750 | 131 668 | 111 497 485 | 112 029 897 | 532 413 | 0.5% |
| 40–44 | 9589 184 | 7303 122 | 337 807 | 222 333 | 115 474 | 83 588 357 | 84 028 600 | 440 242 | 0.5% |
| 45–49 | 8455 438 | 6431 206 | 237 588 | 152 960 | 84 628 | 50 807 739 | 51 070 494 | 262 755 | 0.5% |
| 50–54 | 7094 744 | 5247 273 | 110 106 | 68 738 | 41 367 | 19 896 412 | 19 967 969 | 71 557 | 0.4% |
| Total | 78 313 922 | 51 991 449 | 2528 618 | 1698 493 | 830 126 | 775 339 623 | 778 233 283 | 2 893 661 | 0.4% |
| Female | |||||||||
| 15–19 | 11 186 945 | 7331 | 309 | 196 | 113 | 171 058 | 171 512 | 454 | 0.3% |
| 20–24 | 10 345 786 | 20 692 | 854 | 546 | 308 | 446 938 | 448 158 | 1219 | 0.3% |
| 25–29 | 10 207 474 | 96 971 | 3934 | 2511 | 1423 | 1899 506 | 1905 657 | 6152 | 0.3% |
| 30–34 | 10 192 667 | 173 275 | 6847 | 4336 | 2512 | 2990 977 | 3003 050 | 12 073 | 0.4% |
| 35–39 | 10 059 746 | 246 464 | 9181 | 5804 | 3378 | 3593 983 | 3610 415 | 16 431 | 0.5% |
| 40–44 | 9334 423 | 298 702 | 9891 | 6287 | 3604 | 3433 867 | 3449 819 | 15 952 | 0.5% |
| 45–49 | 8260 705 | 326 298 | 8505 | 5477 | 3028 | 2588 764 | 2599 157 | 10 393 | 0.4% |
| 50–54 | 7043 260 | 331 033 | 4772 | 3140 | 1631 | 1258 941 | 1261 889 | 2948 | 0.2% |
| Total | 76 631 005 | 1500 033 | 44 293 | 28 296 | 15 998 | 16 384 035 | 16 449 657 | 65 622 | 0.4% |
| Total | 154 944 927 | 53 492 215 | 2572 911 | 1954 762 | 667 556 | 791 723 658 | 794 682 941 | 2959 283 | 0.4% |
| Uncertainty (95 % CI) for total years of life lost | (2529 000 to 3393 293) | ||||||||
*Excess deaths = deaths in the hypothetical smoking cohort minus deaths in the smoking cohort. *Years of life lost = years of life lived in the hypothetical smoking cohort minus years of life lived in the smoking cohort.
†%Smoker = years of life lost/years of life lived in the hypothetical non-smoking cohort.
YLL, years of life lived.
Years of life lived
Table 2 summarises the estimated years of life lived by the smoking cohort and the hypothetical non-smoking cohort. In total, smoking was estimated to lead to 2959 283 years of life lost (95% CI 2.5 to 3.3 million) (discounted), with 2893 661 (0.4% among male smokers) years of life lost in men and 65 622 (0.4% among female smokers) in women.
Quality-adjusted life years
Table 3 summarises the estimated QALYs lived by the smoking cohort and the hypothetical non-smoking cohort. In total, smoking was estimated to lead to 41 629 391 QALYs lost (95% CI 26.1 to 100 million) (discounted), with 40 750 543 (5.9% among male smokers) QALYs lost in men and 878 848 (6.1% among female smokers) in women.
Table 3.
Discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and productivity-adjusted life years (PALYs) in the smoking cohort and in the hypothetical non-smoking cohort of Indonesians aged 15–54 years, followed up until age 55 years
| Five-year age group | QALYs lived in the smoking cohort | QALYs lived in the non-smoking cohort | QALYs lost* | %Smoker† | PALYs lived in the smoking cohort | PALYs lived in the non-smoking cohort | PALYs lost‡ | %Smoker§ | Per smoker | |
| Male | ||||||||||
| 15–19 | 108 906 689 | 115 105 595 | 4042 144 | 5.4% | 103 212 855 | 105 472 025 | 2259 170 | 2.1% | 0.42 | |
| 20–24 | 109 195 323 | 115 685 051 | 4421 169 | 5.6% | 108 185 924 | 110 596 969 | 2411 046 | 2.2% | 0.41 | |
| 25–29 | 110 036 056 | 116 840 051 | 4856 674 | 5.8% | 111 914 564 | 114 472 360 | 2 557 796 | 2.2% | 0.38 | |
| 30–34 | 106 505 204 | 113 232 602 | 5 011 969 | 5.9% | 109 195 873 | 111 771 270 | 2 575 397 | 2.3% | 0.35 | |
| 35–39 | 93 241 034 | 99 278 188 | 4 716 455 | 6.1% | 95 982 758 | 98 310 942 | 2 328 184 | 2.4% | 0.30 | |
| 40–44 | 68 790 374 | 73 390 317 | 3 793 201 | 6.3% | 71 264 497 | 73 028 980 | 1 764 483 | 2.4% | 0.24 | |
| 45–49 | 41 103 461 | 43 920 625 | 2 471 566 | 6.4% | 42 657 518 | 43 710 680 | 1 053 162 | 2.4% | 0.16 | |
| 50–54 | 16 096 197 | 17 172 453 | 1 014 822 | 6.3% | 16 351 488 | 16 729 743 | 378 255 | 2.3% | 0.07 | |
| Total | 653 874 339 | 694 624 883 | 30 328 000 | 5.9% | 658 765 476 | 674 092 968 | 15 327 492 | 2.3% | 0.29 | |
| Female | ||||||||||
| 15–19 | 147 691 | 156 162 | 8471 | 5.4% | 129 004 | 131 866 | 2862 | 2.2% | 0.39 | |
| 20–24 | 382 537 | 405 277 | 22 740 | 5.6% | 345 782 | 353 450 | 7668 | 2.2% | 0.37 | |
| 25–29 | 1612 001 | 1711 507 | 99 507 | 5.8% | 1474 106 | 1507 503 | 33 396 | 2.2% | 0.34 | |
| 30–34 | 2523 708 | 2682 989 | 159 281 | 5.9% | 2297 696 | 2351 603 | 53 907 | 2.3% | 0.31 | |
| 35–39 | 3005 213 | 3199 213 | 194 000 | 6.1% | 2725 542 | 2790 987 | 65 445 | 2.3% | 0.27 | |
| 40–44 | 2825 775 | 3012 918 | 187 143 | 6.2% | 2561 633 | 2623 378 | 61 746 | 2.4% | 0.21 | |
| 45–49 | 2094 310 | 2235 275 | 140 965 | 6.3% | 1884 414 | 1928 716 | 44 303 | 2.3% | 0.14 | |
| 50–54 | 1018 484 | 1085 225 | 66 741 | 6.1% | 889 508 | 908 948 | 19 440 | 2.1% | 0.06 | |
| Total | 13 609 719 | 14 488 567 | 878 848 | 6.1% | 12 307 684 | 12 596 452 | 288 768 | 2.3% | 0.19 | |
| Total | 667 484 058 | 709 113 450 | 41 629 391 | 5.9% | 671 073 160 | 686 689 420 | 15 616 260 | 2.3% | 0.29 | |
| Uncertainty (95 % CI) for total (26 145 659 to 100 093 701) QALY and PALY lost |
(13 028 888 to16 062 306) | |||||||||
*QALYs lost = QALYs lived in the hypothetical smoking cohort minus QALYs lived in the smoking cohort.
†%Smoker = QALYs lost / QALYs lived in the hypothetical non-smoking cohort.
‡PALYs lost = PALYs lived in the hypothetical smoking cohort minus PALYs lived in the smoking cohort.
§%Smoker = PALYs lost / PALYs lived in the hypothetical non-smoking cohort.
Productivity-adjusted life years
Table 3 summarises the estimated PALYs lived by the smoking cohort and the hypothetical non-smoking cohort. In total, smoking was estimated to lead to 15 616 260 PALYs lost (95% CI (13.0 to 16.0 million) (discounted)), with 15 327 492 (2.3% loss among male smokers) PALYs lost in men and 288 768 (2.3% loss among female smokers) in women. Overall, 0.29 PALYs were estimated to be lost per smoker.
Cost of productivity loss
The cost of PALYs lost due to smoking was derived by assuming a constant GDP per full-time worker of US$11 765. In total, smoking was associated with US$183 726 339 465 loss in GDP (95 CI 148.4 to 164.3 billion) (discounted), with US$180 328 964 857 GDP lost in men and US$3397 374 608 in women (table 4). GDP lost per smoker was estimated to reach US$3435 among the working-age population followed up until retirement (table 4).
Table 4.
Discounted cost of productivity and healthcare costs in the smoking cohort and in the hypothetical non-smoking cohort of Indonesians aged 15–54 years, followed up until age 55 years
| Age group | Cost of productivity in the smoking cohort | Cost of productivity in the hypothetical non-smoking cohort | Cost of productivity lost | Smoking-related healthcare costs |
| Male | ||||
| 15–19 | 1214 306 114 180 | 1240 885 399,020 | 26,579,284,841 | 276,692,956,505 |
| 20–24 | 1272 814 602 920 | 1301 180 714 900 | 28 366 111 981 | 279 856 693 096 |
| 25–29 | 1316 682 298 476 | 1346 774 938 142 | 30 092 639 667 | 284 426 867 754 |
| 30–34 | 1284 696 723 401 | 1314 996 436 239 | 30 299 712 838 | 375 311 821 468 |
| 35–39 | 1129 243 542 337 | 1156 634 782 986 | 27 391 240 649 | 244 606 153 617 |
| 40–44 | 838 431 551 420 | 859 190 813 212 | 20 759 261 791 | 183 378 365 925 |
| 45–49 | 501 868 547 094 | 514 259 068 177 | 12 390 521 083 | 111 463 372 935 |
| 50–54 | 192 376 346 403 | 196 826 538 410 | 4450 192 007 | 43 649 278 866 |
| Total | 7750 419 726 231 | 7930 748 691 088 | 180 328 964 857 | 1799 385 510 167 |
| Female | ||||
| 15–19 | 1517 741 108 | 1551 416 368 | 33 675 260 | 375 270 778 |
| 20–24 | 4068 147 650 | 4158 366 769 | 90 219 118 | 980 505 287 |
| 25–29 | 17 342 957 460 | 17 735 869 272 | 392 911 812 | 4167 186 004 |
| 30–34 | 27 032 543 815 | 27 666 766 544 | 634 222 729 | 8901 582 447 |
| 35–39 | 32 066 183 386 | 32 836 151 578 | 769 968 191 | 7884 576 747 |
| 40–44 | 30 137 777 395 | 30 864 219 081 | 726 441 686 | 7533 309 724 |
| 45–49 | 22 170 253 558 | 22 691 475 789 | 521 222 230 | 5679 299 738 |
| 50–54 | 10 465 115 880 | 10 693 829 461 | 228 713 580 | 2761 899 256 |
| Total | 144 800 720 253 | 148 198 094 860 | 3397 374 608 | 38 283 629 982 |
| Total | 7895 220 446 484 | 8078 946 785 948 | 183 726 339 465 | 1837 669 140 149 |
| Uncertainty (95 % CI) | (148.4 to 164.3 billion) (1.82 to 1.85 trillion) | |||
Results were derived by assuming a constant GDP per equivalent full-time (EFT) worker of US$11 765, all costs are expressed in US$. Non-smoking related healthcare costs are zero.
Healthcare costs
Overall, discounted results showed that the smoking-attributable healthcare costs in Indonesia were estimated to be US$1837 669 140 149 (95% CI 1.82 to 1.85 trillion). Men incurred smoking-related healthcare costs of US$1799 385 510 167, while women incurred US$38 283 629 982 among the working-age population followed-up until retirement (table 4).
All other undiscounted results are provided in the online supplemental appendices 6 and 7.
Scenario analyses
A number of scenario analyses were undertaken in which the prevalence of smoking was hypothetically reduced by 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% (figure 1 and appendix 8). In total, halving of the current prevalence of smoking would return approximately 1.4 million years of life, 20.3 million QALYs, 7.6 million PALYs, US$90 billion in GDP and save US$899 billion in smoking-related healthcare costs.
Figure 1.

Gains in terms of years of life, productivity-adjusted life years (PALYs) saved, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained in which prevalence of smoking was hypothetically reduced by 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%.
Running the model for 1 year only, lead to 10 414 years of life lost, 2573 566 QALYs lost, 874 136 PALYs lost, US$10.2 billion loss in GDP and 117 billion loss in healthcare costs (table 5). Furthermore, additional scenario analyses showed that removing healthcare costs and annual GDP growth had a major impact on final outcomes of interest. For example, applying an annual GDP growth of 5.17% increased total PALYs lost by 98% (table 5). Of note, removing healthcare costs for ages 17–29 years and 17–34 years reduced total healthcare costs by 15.5% and 25.3%, respectively.
Table 5.
Scenario analyses
| Description | Total years of life lost | Total QALYs lost | Total PALYs lost | Total GDP lost | Total smoking health-related costs (US$) |
| Base case | 2959 283 | 41 629 391 | 15 616 260 | 183 726 339 465 | 1837 669 140 149 |
| One-year time horizon | 10 414 | 2573 566 | 874 136 | 10 284 268 975 | 117 276 697 420 |
| Male | 9989 | 2498 596 | 851 417 | 10 016 975 640 | 113 986 765 799 |
| Female | 425 | 74 971 | 22 719 | 267 293 335 | 3289 931 620 |
| Removing healthcare costs for participants aged 17–29 years in the model | 1556 764 540 624 | ||||
| Percentage change from base case | −15.3% | ||||
| Removing healthcare costs for participants aged 17–34 years in the model | 1371 023 610 646 | ||||
| Percentage change from base case | −25.4% | ||||
| Halved healthcare costs from US$2194 to US$1097 per person | 918 834 570 074 | ||||
| Percentage change from base case | −50% | ||||
| Removing effect of PAR% for participants aged 17–29 years | 2892 708 | 41 572 735 | 15 559 206 | 183 055 100 112 | 1837 815 194 535 |
| Percentage change from base case | −0.022 | −0.001 | −0.004 | −0.004 | 0.0 |
| Applying annual GDP growth of 5.17% | 364 886 237 501 | ||||
| Percentage change from base case | +98% |
GDP, gross domestic product; PALY, productivity adjusted life years; PAR%, population-attributable risk percentage; QALYs, quality adjusted life years.
Discussion
The present study highlights the significant impact of tobacco smoking in Indonesia, the country with the highest prevalence of smoking in the world. This study focused on productivity; the estimates exclude the burden borne by people aged older than 55 years, whereby the estimated burden would be even larger if they had been included in the analysis.
Smoking impact on mortality and years of life lost
The total number of excess deaths among Indonesian smokers currently of working age was predicted to be 846 123, with 98% of these excess deaths occurring in male smokers. The latter reflects the extraordinarily high prevalence of smoking among Indonesian men. Of all deaths occurring among the cohort, 12.5% was attributable to smoking.
The above findings are in accordance with data from around the world. A study from Australia by Owen et al, which also used life table modelling, showed that smoking caused 23.1% of all deaths occurring in the whole population.5 Furthermore, a Malaysian study by Tan et al also using the same method showed that smoking caused 45.0% excess deaths among working-age male smokers, which accounted for 23.5% of all deaths.6 Despite the same methods, the other two studies found higher percentages of smoking-attributable deaths due to longer follow-up periods (eg, 65 years in Malaysia and 70 years in Australia).
The present study predicted that 2959 283 years of life (0.4% among smokers) would be lost by Indonesians of current working age followed up until age 55 years.
Owen et al predicted that smoking would cause approximately 3.1 millions of years of life lost (4.2%) among Australian smokers currently aged 20–69 years if they were followed up until 70 years.5 Indonesian smokers showed an overall similar percentage of years of life lost compared with the Australian population, even though Australian years of life lost were largely due to a longer period of follow-up in the Australian study (70 years compared with 55 years), and the fact that mortality rises sharply from middle age. Furthermore, Owen et al5 did not apply discounting to their predictions of years of life lost. In the present study, if discounting was not applied, the loss predicted in years of life was 5.03 million.
Tan et al predicted that 2182 053 years of life (2.9% loss) would be lost by Malaysian male smokers.6 The results are not directly comparable because as mentioned, the follow-up periods were greater in the Malaysian study. Unlike Owen et al, Tan et al did apply discounting to estimated years of life lived, but this was only 3% per year,5 half of that assumed in the present study.
Smoking impact on QALYs
The present study predicted that 59.4 million QALYs (6.0% among smokers) would be lost by Indonesians of current working age followed up until age 55 years, equivalent to 0.77 QALYs lost per smoker. Again, the bulk of this burden in absolute terms occurred in male smokers, but the loss among women was greater in proportional terms (0.58 QALYs lost in women). Owen et al5 predicted that smoking would lead to a loss of 2.8 QALYs undiscounted per Australian smoker of working age, while Tan et al predicted that 1.3 QALYs would be lost per Malaysian male smoker of working age (15–65 years).6 The extent of QALYs lost per Indonesian smoker of working age was less than those predicted for working-age Australian and Malaysian men because follow-up periods for the latter two cohorts were longer.
Smoking impact on productivity
The total smoking attributable PALYs lost in Indonesian smokers, aged 15–54 years with follow-up until retirement, equated to a 2.3% loss or 0.29 PALYs lost per smoker. Similarly with smoking impact on quality of life, men bore this burden more in absolute terms, but the loss among women was similar in proportional terms.
Owen et al found that smoking caused 2.5 million PALYs lost (0.94 per smoker) among Australian working-age smokers.5 Similarly, Tan et al reported Malaysian smokers of working age lost approximately 3.0 million PALYs due to smoking, which equated to 0.70 PALYs lost per smoker.6 In absolute terms smoking attributable PALYs lost were much higher in Indonesia (ie, 15.6 million), but in proportional terms was higher in Australia and Malaysia, due to the longer follow-up periods of the two cohorts.
We estimated the broader economic costs of smoking, in terms of lost GDP, to be US$3435 (0.29 PALYs) per smoker. In our other studies that have adopted the same methods, Owen et al5 estimated the economic impact to be US$102 000 (1.0 PALYs) per Australian smoker and Tan et al6 estimated the economic impact to be US$17 600 (0.75 PALYs) per male Malaysian smoker. The differences reflect major differences in GDP per capita for the three countries, as well as assumed retirement ages (Indonesia 55 years, Malaysia 65 years and Australia 70 years).
Smoking-related healthcare costs
The present study predicted that Indonesian smokers aged 15–54 years would incur total healthcare costs of US$1.83 trillion by the time they reached age 55 years. Even when healthcare costs were removed for participants aged 15–34 years, smokers in Indonesia still incurred 1.37 trillion by the time they reached age 55 years. No previous study has estimated smoking-related healthcare costs using life table modelling; many studies have described the significant economic burden in terms of healthcare expenditure caused by smoking using varying methods. In 2012, US$422 billion in healthcare costs was attributable to smoking globally, which was equivalent to 5.7% of the total healthcare expenditure.3 Similarly, a recent study from India assessed the economic costs of tobacco use for the year 2017–2018 for age above 35 years and found that the total economic cost attributed to tobacco was US$27.5 billion, equivalent to 5.3% of the total health expenditure.4 Using a similar age bracket as in a recent study from India our annual estimated costs amounted to US$77.3 billion. In Thailand, the total cost of smoking constituted 0.78% of the country’s national GDP.21
Implications
Although the present study did not evaluate the cost-effectiveness of individual smoking prevention strategies, the results provide a theoretical illustration of gains from reduced smoking prevalence. Mortality due to smoking is very large in the world and any smoking-related interventions (including education, behaviour and smoking cessation therapy) are likely to reduce future mortality and related healthcare costs in Indonesia.
Several preventive measures are known to be effective, such as the use of pharmacological treatments, price-based and non-price-based policy measures, smoking cessation classes, school-based smoking prevalence programmes and workplace-based interventions.22 A meta-analysis published by the Cochrane Library in 2013 indicated that the use of pharmacological treatments for preventing tobacco intake was effective.23 However, this approach may not be the most cost-effective strategy, considering the costs range from €19.69 (US$21.46) to €624.47 (US$680.67) per complete course of treatment.24
Among the aforementioned preventive measures, price-based policy approaches (such as increasing tobacco taxes) and non-price-based legislation (such as prohibiting smoking in public places and workplaces, age-restriction rules and bans on advertisements) have been shown to be the most cost-effective.22 Increasing tobacco tax by 10% was proven to reduce smoking prevalence by between 4% and 8%.25 26 A study by Cleghorn et al in 2017 modelled the benefits of increasing tobacco taxes by 10% annually from 2011 to 2020 in New Zealand.27 The study estimated that there would be a 1.6% increase in QALYs lived among people aged 20–65 years, and savings of approximately NZ$10.6 million (US$6.6 million) in healthcare costs. Non-price-based legislation may even be more effective, reducing smoking prevalence between 30% and 82% in the long term.22 In reality, a multifaceted approach to tobacco control and smoking prevention is required.
Although the Indonesian government has implemented a number of strategies to reduce the number of smokers (with most of the measures being legislative-based restrictions and bans), these strategies have not been well reinforced. Indonesia is the only country in Asia that has not yet signed and ratified the WHO framework convention on tobacco control, and as a consequence of this Indonesia has a very weak tobacco control policy.28
A report by the WHO in 2019 using the MPOWER measures (Monitor tobacco use and prevention policies, Protect people from tobacco use, Offer help to quit tobacco use, Warn about the dangers of tobacco, Enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship and Raise taxes on tobacco) indicated that Indonesia was still behind in terms of smoking prevention policies and programmes, health warnings and bans on cigarette advertisements.28 Furthermore, the price of cigarettes in Indonesia was found to be consistently low over many years, with a taxation of just 58.5% on retail prices,28 compared with the worldwide benchmark of 70%.29
Other challenges include lack of awareness concerning the negative health and economic impacts of tobacco smoking among people in Indonesia. By quantifying all the smoking-attributable losses and highlighting the benefits of reducing the prevalence of smoking (especially in terms of the broader economy), the present study will provide greater motivation to the government and policy makers for implementing tobacco control programmes.
Strengths and limitations
The present study is the first to estimate the burden of smoking and its impact on the health and the larger economy of Indonesia. The study also used a recently derived measure called PALY,9 which permits productivity to be quantified using accessible national data as well as evaluation of various smoking prevention measures. Such information provides policy makers with better insight into the potential gains from smoking prevention measures, and hence may help inform cost-effective cessation programmes and appropriate allocation of scarce healthcare resources.
In the past, other studies have attempted to model the burden of smoking in terms of smoking-related diseases.30–34 However, modelling the benefits of smoking cessation in this manner is limited by uncertainty arising from having to estimate its net impact mediated via the multiple smoking-related conditions. In particular, there would be significant interaction that cannot be accurately captured. Our approach minimises this uncertainty by applying the benefit of smoking cessation on the summary measures of mortality, quality of life and productivity.
The versatility of our model is a strength. Presently we demonstrate the functionality of our model using a hypothetical example of improving smoking prevalence in the Indonesian setting. However, our model can be applied in any setting as long as data exist for population mortality, PAR% due to smoking and smoking prevalence.
There are a number of limitations of the present study. First, the analyses did not consider potential losses and gains from secondhand smoking-attributable mortality and morbidity, due to a lack of relevant data inputs from Indonesia.
Second, the period of follow-up was relatively short, with simulation only until age 55 years, the official retirement age in Indonesia. This precedes the age range within which the bulk of smoking-attributable disease manifests. The present study sought to quantify the impact of smoking among Indonesians of working age, rather than all Indonesians.
Third, despite using life table modelling, which is a commonly used tool in epidemiological and demographical studies, this approach has a well-known limitation called the life table assumption, in which age-specific death rates remain constant throughout the model time horizon. However, given that this assumption was applied to both the smoking cohort and the hypothetically non-smoking cohort, it would not have substantially affected the results, and the overall conclusion that smoking causes significant health and economic burden. Fourth, it was assumed that there was no movement of people into or out of the smoking cohort over time. That is, smokers did not quit, nor did non-smokers take up smoking within the model time horizon. While the possibility of smoking uptake after young adulthood is low, cessation does occur over time. Hence, the assumption would have led to an overestimation in the total number of smokers, and consequently the burden of smoking. The next major limitation stemmed from lack of gender-specific and age-specific healthcare costs. Therefore, the current estimates might overestimate the total healthcare costs attributed to smoking.
Finally, the present study did not consider the contribution of the local tobacco industry to Indonesia’s GDP. Any changes in the prevalence of smoking would of course also affect GDP to some extent via its effect on the tobacco industry.
Conclusion
Smoking exerts a significant burden on both the health and economy of Indonesia. The findings of the present study stress the importance of funding effective tobacco control strategies at the macro and micro levels. We present an easy-to-apply smoking model that will help with decision making in clinical practice, public health and health policy.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
Twitter: @ZANFINA
Contributors: ZA, DL and DM conceived the idea and contributed to the design of the work. ZA, RPUS and REU contributed to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work. RPUS and ZA drafted the manuscript. ZA, DL, DM, RPUS and EZ critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work ensuring integrity and accuracy.
Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests: None declared.
Patient consent for publication: Not required.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement: Data are available in published form and costing data are presented in the electronic supplementary files. The model is available upon reasonable request to the authors.
Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
References
- 1.GBD 2015 Tobacco Collaborators Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet 2017;389:1885–906. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30819-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.The World Bank Data Smoking prevalence (Indonesia), total (ages 15+) [Internet]. Cited 2019 Mar 30. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.PRV.SMOK?end=2016&locations=ID&start=2010&view=chart
- 3.Goodchild M, Nargis N, Tursan d'Espaignet E. Global economic cost of smoking-attributable diseases. Tob Control 2018;27:58–64. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.John RM, Sinha P, Munish VG, et al. Economic costs of diseases and deaths attributable to tobacco use in India, 2017-18. Nicotine & Tobacco Research., 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Owen AJ, Maulida SB, Zomer E, et al. Productivity burden of smoking in Australia: a life table modelling study. Tob Control 2019;28:297–304. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Tan QY, Zomer E, Owen AJ, et al. Impact of tobacco use on health and work productivity in Malaysia. Tob Control 2020;29:111–7. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Diener-West M, Kanchanaraksa S. Life tables. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Indonesian Health Technology Assessment Committee (InaHTAC) Ministry of health of the Republic of Indonesia. health technology assessment (HTa) guideline. Available: http://adphealth.org/upload/resource/FINAL_HTA_ENG_-1.pdf [Accessed June 23, 2020].
- 9.Hird T, Zommer E, Owen A, et al. Productivity burden of hypertension in Australia: a life table modeling study. 2 American Heart Association, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hird T, Zommer E, Owen A, et al. The impact of diabetes on productivity in China. Springer, 2019: 2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network Global burden of disease study 2017 (GBD 2017) population estimates 1950-2017 [Internet], 2019. Global health data exchange (GHDx). Available: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/gbd-2017-population-estimates-1950-2017
- 12.IHME Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). GDB Compare|Viz Hub [Internet], 2019. Available: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/
- 13.Kosen S, Hardjo H, Kadarmanto, et al. Global adult tobacco survey: Indonesia report 2011. Indonesia: World Health Organisation, 2012: 162. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Global health data exchange. Available: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool?params=gbd-api-2017-permalink/53e0c6ae61d96a91d9b079eb629fa941
- 15.Jia H, Lubetkin EI. Trends in quality-adjusted life-years lost contributed by smoking and obesity. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:138–44. 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bunn WB. 3Rd, Stave GM, downs ke, Alvir JM, Dirani R. effect of smoking status on productivity loss. J Occup Environ Med 2006;48:1099–108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Statistik BP. Keadaan angkatan kerja di Indonesia (labor force situation in Indonesia): Agustus/August 2018. Indonesia: Badan Pusat Statistik, 2018: 229. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Fund IM. World economic outlook database [Internet]. International Monetary Fund, 2017. Available: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=21&pr.y=9&sy=2015&ey=2022&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=536&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=
- 19.The world bank data. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=ID
- 20.Kristina SA, Endarti D, Wiedyaningsih C, et al. Health care cost of noncommunicable diseases related to smoking in Indonesia, 2015. Asia Pac J Public Health 2018;30:29–35. 10.1177/1010539517751311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bundhamcharoen K, Aungkulanon S, Makka N, et al. Economic burden from smoking-related diseases in Thailand. Tob Control 2016;25:532–7. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ekpu VU, Brown AK. The economic impact of smoking and of reducing smoking prevalence: review of evidence. Tob Use Insights 2015;8:TUI.S15628–35. 10.4137/TUI.S15628 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Cahill K, Stevens S, Perera R, et al. Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;5:Cd009329. 10.1002/14651858.CD009329.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Trapero-Bertran M, Leidl R, Muñoz C, et al. Estimates of costs for modelling return on investment from smoking cessation interventions. Addiction 2018;113 Suppl 1:32–41. 10.1111/add.14091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bartecchi CE, MacKenzie TD, Schrier RW. The human costs of tobacco use (1). N Engl J Med 1994;330:907–12. 10.1056/NEJM199403313301307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Jha P, Chaloupka FJ. The economics of global tobacco control. BMJ 2000;321:358–61. 10.1136/bmj.321.7257.358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Cleghorn CL, Blakely T, Kvizhinadze G, et al. Impact of increasing tobacco taxes on working-age adults: short-term health gain, health equity and cost savings. Tob Control 2018;27:e167–70. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.World Health Organisation WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2019. Country profile: Indonesia [Internet], 2019. Available: https://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/policy/country_profile/idn.pdf
- 29.World Health Organisation Tobacco free initiative (TFI): Taxation [Internet]. Cited Sep 26, 2019. Available: https://www.who.int/tobacco/economics/taxation/en/
- 30.Bolin K. Economic evaluation of smoking-cessation therapies: a critical and systematic review of simulation models. Pharmacoeconomics 2012;30:551–64. 10.2165/11590120-000000000-00000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Ruger JP, Lazar CM. Economic evaluation of pharmaco- and behavioral therapies for smoking cessation: a critical and systematic review of empirical research. Annu Rev Public Health 2012;33:279–305. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gordon L, Graves N, Hawkes A, et al. A review of the cost-effectiveness of face-to-face behavioural interventions for smoking, physical activity, diet and alcohol. Chronic Illn 2007;3:101–29. 10.1177/1742395307081732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Annemans L, Nackaerts K, Bartsch P, et al. Cost effectiveness of varenicline in Belgium, compared with bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, brief counselling and unaided smoking cessation: a BENESCO Markov cost-effectiveness analysis. Clin Drug Investig 2009;29:655–65. 10.2165/11317730-000000000-00000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hurley SF, Matthews JP. The quit benefits model: a Markov model for assessing the health benefits and health care cost savings of quitting smoking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2007;5:2. 10.1186/1478-7547-5-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
bmjopen-2020-041832supp001.pdf (441.5KB, pdf)
