Regarding the first question, I just briefly looked again at the report and indeed I donât see that explicitly taken into account. I only vaguely remember thinking about that, and Iâm not sure how that was resolved.
I think the main causal pathway they used in their report is QALY gains from people quitting smoking, so that sounds like it wouldnât change drastically if the intervention was delayed by, say, a couple of years. So I agree that this is a good question to look into further, and I expect that could indeed reduce the cost effectiveness by 3x-10x. Great catch David!
Regarding the first question, I just briefly looked again at the report and indeed I donât see that explicitly taken into account. I only vaguely remember thinking about that, and Iâm not sure how that was resolved.
I think the main causal pathway they used in their report is QALY gains from people quitting smoking, so that sounds like it wouldnât change drastically if the intervention was delayed by, say, a couple of years. So I agree that this is a good question to look into further, and I expect that could indeed reduce the cost effectiveness by 3x-10x. Great catch David!