Impact of increased funding for Stop Smoking Services in England on quit attempts: population-based study 2021–2025

Background The UK Government aims to reduce smoking rates by implementing new, and investing in existing, tobacco control strategies including increased funding for Stop Smoking Services (SSS) in England. This study examined whether the additional funding starting in April 2024 was associated with a detectable increase in quit attempts supported by SSS and whether it was cost-effective. Methods We used data from the Smoking Toolkit Study, a repeat cross-sectional survey conducted in 2021–2025. Adults aged ≥18 years who smoked cigarettes and had made a quit attempt in the past year were included (nweighted=5076). The outcome was monthly prevalence of past-year quit attempts supported by SSS among all attempting to quit. We fitted general additive models with a step change in April 2024 to represent the start of the increased funding. We adjusted for tobacco tax increases, the Swap-to-Stop scheme, age, gender and a measure of socioeconomic position. In an unplanned analysis, we extended the time series to 2006–2026. For the cost-effectiveness, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the total population and age groups, accounting for future lifetime cessation. Results In the primary model, the April 2024 step change was not statistically significant (adjusted OR: 1.13; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.49). The cost-effectiveness analysis ranged from cost-effective to extremely ineffective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): £104 126, 95% CI £939 398 to £8293). When using the extended time series, the adjusted OR for the step change was 2.36 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.51) and the intervention was cost-effective (ICER: £16 791; 95% CI £84 331 to £6611). Conclusions Compared with the long-term trend, increased funding to SSS in England in 2024 was associated with an increase in quit attempts supported by SSS at the population level. This result is somewhat uncertain because this analysis was unplanned and our primary preplanned analyses assessing the impact relative to a more recent trend were insensitive.