Nicotine dependence and its association with health utility ratings among a sample of Indian dental patients

• Published in: Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 2021-12, Vol.49 (6), p.574-580
• Main Authors: Acharya, Shashidhar, Acharya, Shruthi, Pentapati, Kalyana Chakravarthy, Thomson, William Murray
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Chewing; Consumption; Dentistry; dependence; Drug dependence; health utilities; Nicotine; Oral hygiene; Quality of life; quality‐adjusted life‐years; Tobacco
• ISSN: 0301-5661; 1600-0528
• DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12629

Objectives To measure utility ratings and quality‐adjusted life‐years(QALYs) for nicotine dependence‐related health states using the standard gamble approach among a sample of dental patients; investigate the possible associations of nicotine dependence, and study the influences on tobacco‐related health state utilities estimates among patients. Methods A sample of 200 adult outpatients who were current or former consumers of tobacco were included in the cross‐sectional study. Demographic, oral health self‐rating and tobacco‐related data (Fagerstrom scale for nicotine dependence, type of tobacco consumed, frequency and duration of the habit) were collected. A standard gamble method of utility valuation was also carried out. Results Older age, lower educational attainment, higher frequency of consumption, increased duration of the habit, consumption of chewing tobacco, as opposed to smoking tobacco, and poor oral health were associated with higher nicotine dependence. Lower nicotine dependence, better oral health and quitting the habit were associated with better health utility estimates. QALYs lost due to the habit among the ‘low to moderate’ and ‘significant’ nicotine dependence groups were 2.7 (sd, 3.7) and 6.7 (sd, 8.0) years, respectively. Conclusions Higher health utility ratings were seen among patients with ‘low to moderate’ nicotine dependence, better oral health status and quitters of the tobacco habit. Quality of life weights generated through this method could be used for cost‐utility analyses of tobacco cessation/prevention interventions in different settings and cultures.