2 The Effects of Smoking on Lung Cancer Rates among Adults in New York Student Name Course Date 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%. 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 perfo.

1. 2
The Effects of Smoking on Lung Cancer Rates among Adults in
New York
Student Name
Course
Date
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

2. 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%.
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

3. 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.
5

4. 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

5. 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-

6. 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).

7. 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.
To make your literature review “flow”

8. • like
• similar to
• also
• in the same way
• at the same time
• unlike
• in contrast
• contrasted with
• on the contrary
• while…
compare contrastand
your articles
2
Objective Summary
Student Name
University
Professor
Course
Date

9. Objective Summary
Who: Lung cancer and smoking association differences among
women and men by O'Keeffe et al.
Why: This study's main objective was to examine the gender
differences in lung cancer and smoking association.
When: The authors conducted research between 1999 and 2016.
In this period, the researchers considered the age and pre-
existing condition of participants from the previous studies.
Where: The authors reviewed Embase and PubMed for journal
articles, documenting the association between lung cancer and
smoking in a general sample of women and men. Two
researchers independently screened studies and a third author
resolved any disagreements. Data were retrieved in triplicate
from papers thought to be relevant.
How: The researchers conducted meta-analyses and systematic
reviews of previously conducted prospective cohort studies on
gender- the relationship of having smoked with the risk of death
from any non-fatal lung cancer recently published. They
scanned for articles published in EMBASE and Medline
databases. The computer-assisted search incorporated medically
significant terms and complimentary phrases related to
'smoking,' ' lung cancer,' "gender," and "cohort prospective
studies."(O’Keeffe et al.2018). The authors then used random-
effects meta-analysis to pool the variations in the natural log of
the Parameter across trials in their meta-analysis. The authors

10. also performed planned subgroup analyses to test the results'
validity. According to the findings, the study discovered no
variation in the probability of lung cancer in both sexes.
.O’Keeffe et al.(2018) states that "In this systematic review and
meta-analysis, comprising data from more than 7 million
participants, 99 cohort studies, and over 50000 incident cases of
lung cancer, there was no evidence for a difference in the risk
of smoking-related lung cancer in women compared with
men"(p.4). This statement was accurate across many subgroups
of men. Although because the smoking rate and severity were
greater in men than in women in many studies of the review, the
authors explain that there could be an undiscovered gender
difference in the likelihood of cancer for the lungs that will
show when cigarette smoking becomes highly prevalent in
women.
Reference
O’Keeffe, L. M., Taylor, G., Huxley, R. R., Mitchell, P.,

11. 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.