Results of a year-long incentives-based worksite smoking-cessation program

Modeling Health Event Impact on Smoking Cessation

Background

This study examined how cognitive and affective constructs related to an acute health event predict smoking relapse following an acute cardiac health event.

Methods

Participants were recruited from emergency departments and completed cognitive and emotional measures at enrollment and ecological momentary assessments (EMA) for 84 days postvisit.

Results

Of 394 participants, only 35 (8.9%) remained abstinent 84 days postvisit. Time to relapse was positively associated with age, actual illness severity, self-efficacy, and quit intentions.

Conclusions

Older, seriously ill patients with strong confidence and intentions to quit smoking remain abstinent longer after discharge, but most still relapse within three months.

Are financial incentives more effective than health campaigns to quit smoking? A community-randomised smoking cessation trial in Denmark

The aim of this community-randomised smoking cessation (SC) trial was to investigate both recruitment and SC-rates in three municipalities offering financial incentives (FIM) to smokers who stop smoking when attending a municipal SC-program and compare these with three municipalities investing in a campaign (CAM) that should encourage smokers to use the SC-program. Furthermore, in a non-randomised matched control design we investigated whether there was a difference in recruitment and SC-rates in the three FIM and the three CAM, comparing each with three matched control municipalities (MCM). Each municipality received approx. $16,000. The FIM rewarded persons who were abstinent when attending the municipal SC-program. The CAM spent the money on a campaign recruiting smokers to the SC-program. Two of three FIM were only partly active in recruiting smokers in the intervention year 2018. An intention-to-treat (ITT) approach was used in analyses. Complete case analyses and multiple imputation were used to address loss to follow-up. No difference in recruitment was found between the CAM and the FIM (p = 0.954), in adjusted analyses. In ITT analyses, FIM achieved significantly higher odds of validated abstinence from smoking at one-year follow-up (OR (95%CI): 1.63(1.1-2.4)), but not of self-reported continuous abstinence after six months than CAM. Compared with no intervention, campaigns increased the recruitment of smokers to the SC-program while financial incentives increased six months abstinence rates. In a randomised trial, no difference was demonstrated in the effect of financial incentives and campaigns to recruit smokers to a SC-program and financial incentives seemed superior to help smokers staying smoke-free for a year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov ID: NCT03849092.

Higher incentive amounts do not appear to be associated with greater quit rates in financial incentive programmes for smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

Financial incentive (FI) programmes can promote smoking cessation. While foundational research suggests higher FI amounts may better produce outcomes, confirmation is needed. Further, the optimal amount(s) needed to cost-effectively promote change is unclear. Our objective was to reconfirm whether higher amounts are associated with greater quitting through review of previous programmes, before assessing whether non-linear trends and obvious inflections in this relationship exist which may highlight optimal amounts.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for controlled or randomised controlled studies which detailed FI programmes for smoking cessation in adults.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included. Programmes varied in length (3.0-52.0 weeks, median = 12.0), FI provision timing, and longest follow-up (5.5-24.0 months, median = 6.0). The odds ratio of quitting at longest follow-up ranged from 0.32 to 5.89. Maximum FI amounts were between US$106.19 and $4,027.92. Quit rates and amounts were not significantly correlated. Subsequent comparisons to reduce between-study variations were non-significant. Further analyses revealed no evidence of non-linear fits, changes in inflection, or cut-points.

CONCLUSIONS

While higher FI amounts were not associated with greater quitting within this review, the limited data available and variations in target populations and programme designs unrelated to the amount have undoubtedly influenced results. Findings suggest information on this relationship and optimal FI amounts are not determinable through current evidence. As this information is important for cost-effectiveness evaluations and real-world viability, further investigation is necessary. Laboratory research could provide valuable initial insight. Trials comparing programme efficacy under the identified amounts could then be implemented.

Incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives, monetary or vouchers, are widely used in an attempt to precipitate, reinforce and sustain behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been used in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and within community programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term effect of incentives and contingency management programmes for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The most recent searches were conducted in July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to smoking cessation incentive schemes or control conditions. We included studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community, work-, clinic- or institution-based), and also studies in pregnant smokers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up (at least six months from the start of the intervention). In the trials of pregnant women we used abstinence measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy. Where available, we pooled outcome data using a Mantel-Haenzel random-effects model, with results reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using adjusted estimates for cluster-randomised trials. We analysed studies carried out in mixed populations separately from those carried out in pregnant populations.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 21,600 participants; 16 of these are new to this version of the review. Studies were set in varying locations, including community settings, clinics or health centres, workplaces, and outpatient drug clinics. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias, and 10 to be at high risk of bias, with the rest at unclear risk. Twenty-four of the trials were run in the USA, two in Thailand and one in the Phillipines. The rest were European. Incentives offered included cash payments or vouchers for goods and groceries, offered directly or collected and redeemable online. The pooled RR for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.49 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.73; 31 RCTs, adjusted N = 20,097; I² = 33%). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of six studies where an incentive for cessation was offered at long-term follow up (result excluding those studies: RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.69; 25 RCTs; adjusted N = 17,058; I² = 36%), suggesting the impact of incentives continues for at least some time after incentives cease.Although not always clearly reported, the total financial amount of incentives varied considerably between trials, from zero (self-deposits), to a range of between USD 45 and USD 1185. There was no clear direction of effect between trials offering low or high total value of incentives, nor those encouraging redeemable self-deposits.We included 10 studies of 2571 pregnant women. We judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, one at high risk of bias, and seven at unclear risk. When pooled, the nine trials with usable data (eight conducted in the USA and one in the UK), delivered an RR at longest follow-up (up to 24 weeks post-partum) of 2.38 (95% CI 1.54 to 3.69; N = 2273; I² = 41%), in favour of incentives.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall there is high-certainty evidence that incentives improve smoking cessation rates at long-term follow-up in mixed population studies. The effectiveness of incentives appears to be sustained even when the last follow-up occurs after the withdrawal of incentives. There is also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by some concerns about risks of bias, that incentive schemes conducted among pregnant smokers improve smoking cessation rates, both at the end of pregnancy and post-partum. Current and future research might explore more precisely differences between trials offering low or high cash incentives and self-incentives (deposits), within a variety of smoking populations.

Incentivizing university students to quit smoking: a randomized controlled trial of a contingency management intervention in a developing country

Background: Contingency management (CM) is an empirically supported behavioral treatment for tobacco use, but its efficacy with university student smokers in a developing country is unknown. Objectives: We evaluate a randomized controlled trial of a CM smoking cessation program conducted on a sample of treatment-seeking student smokers at the University of Cape Town.Methods: The study included a recruitment period, a 6-week intervention period, and a 6-month follow-up period. Subjects in the control group (information and monitoring; n = 47, 76% male) were given information to help them quit smoking and had their quit attempt monitored, receiving R50 ($8) at each assessment. Subjects in the treatment group (information and monitoring, plus CM; n = 40, 80% male) could additionally earn R150 ($24) in abstinence-contingent incentives at each assessment. Outcome variables: 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months and at the end of the intervention period, and a repeated measure of smoking intensity of non-abstinent subjects.Results: CM had no long-term effect on abstinence at 6 months but had a marked and statistically significant effect on the likelihood of abstinence by the end of the intervention period (p < .001). In addition, while CM did not affect smoking intensity, participation in the program decreased the average number of cigarettes smoked per day by non-abstainers (p < .001).Conclusions: The CM program was efficacious in promoting abstinence amongst treatment-seeking university students in a developing country but only while incentives were in place. Future research should focus on promoting continuous abstinence with this target sample.

Effects of a multi-behavioral health promotion program at worksite on smoking patterns and quit behavior

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is associated with various severe health risks. Therefore, the need to decrease smoking rates is a great public health concern. The workplace has capability as a setting through which large groups of smokers can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate effects of a multi behavioral worksite health promotion intervention. The primary outcome was the change of smoking rate. Secondary outcomes were changes in smoking attitudes and readiness to stop smoking among employees over an intervention period of 12 months.

METHOD

112 and 110 employees were enrolled in the intervention and control arm respectively. The intervention group received a 12-month multicomponent health promotion intervention. One of the main elements of the multicomponent intervention was a smoking cessation and counseling program. During the pilot year, participants completed a self-evaluation questionnaire at baseline and again after 12 months to related outcomes and changes.

RESULTS

Results showed that participants' quit behavior and smoking behavior changed over time in the intervention group (IG). Readiness to quit smoking also increased in the IG compared to the comparison group (CG). Some positive intervention effects were observed for cognitive factors (e.g., changes attitudes towards smoking). Baseline willingness to change smoking behavior was significantly improved over time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed initial results of a long-term multicomponent worksite health promotion program with regard to changes in smoking behavior, attitudes towards smoking and readiness to quit smoking. The evaluation suggests that a worksite health promotion program may lead to improvements in smoking behavior for a number of workers.

Competitions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Competitions might encourage people to undertake and/or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. Competitions involve individuals or groups having the opportunity to win a prize following successful cessation, either through direct competition or by entry into a lottery or raffle.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions lead to higher long-term smoking quit rates. We also aimed to examine the impact on the population, the costs, and the unintended consequences of smoking cessation competitions.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has merged two previous Cochrane reviews. Here we include studies testing competitions from the reviews 'Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation' and 'Quit & Win interventions for smoking cessation'. We updated the evidence by searching the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in June 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures in which participants were assigned to interventions by the investigators. Participants were smokers, of any age and gender, in any setting. Eligible interventions were contests, competitions, lotteries, and raffles, to reward cessation and continuous abstinence in smoking cessation programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, data from new studies were extracted independently by two review authors. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We performed meta-analyses to pool study effects where suitable data were available and where the effect of the competition component could be separated from that of other intervention components, and report other findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies met our inclusion criteria. Five investigated performance-based reward, where groups of smokers competed against each other to win a prize (N = 915). The remaining 15 used performance-based eligibility, where cessation resulted in entry into a prize draw (N = 10,580). Five of these used Quit & Win contests (N = 4282), of which three were population-level interventions. Fourteen studies were RCTs, and the remainder quasi-randomized or controlled trials. Six had suitable abstinence data for a meta-analysis, which did not show evidence of effectiveness of performance-based eligibility interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.74, N = 3201, I2 = 57%). No trials that used performance-based rewards found a beneficial effect of the intervention on long-term quit rates.The three population-level Quit & Win studies found higher smoking cessation rates in the intervention group (4% to 16.9%) than the control group at long-term follow-up, but none were RCTs and all had important between-group differences in baseline characteristics. These studies suggested that fewer than one in 500 smokers would quit because of the contest.Reported unintended consequences in all sets of studies generally related to discrepancies between self-reported smoking status and biochemically-verified smoking status. More serious adverse events were not attributed to the competition intervention.Using the GRADE system we rated the overall quality of the evidence for smoking cessation as 'very low', because of the high and unclear risk of bias associated with the included studies, substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the limited population investigated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness, or a lack of it, of smoking cessation competitions. This is due to a lack of well-designed comparative studies. Smoking cessation competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates. The limited evidence suggesting that population-based Quit & Win contests at local and regional level might deliver quit rates above baseline community rates has not been tested adequately using rigorous study designs. It is also unclear whether the value or frequency of possible cash reward schedules influence the success of competitions. Future studies should be designed to compensate for the substantial biases in the current evidence base.

Strategies to improve the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity and obesity

BACKGROUND

Given the substantial period of time adults spend in their workplaces each day, these provide an opportune setting for interventions addressing modifiable behavioural risk factors for chronic disease. Previous reviews of trials of workplace-based interventions suggest they can be effective in modifying a range of risk factors including diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use and tobacco use. However, such interventions are often poorly implemented in workplaces, limiting their impact on employee health. Identifying strategies that are effective in improving the implementation of workplace-based interventions has the potential to improve their effects on health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of strategies for improving the implementation of workplace-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco use and alcohol use.Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of such strategies on employee health behaviours, including dietary intake, physical activity, weight status, and alcohol and tobacco use; evaluate their cost-effectiveness; and identify any unintended adverse effects of implementation strategies on workplaces or workplace staff.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases on 31 August 2017: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In Process; the Campbell Library; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Scopus. We also handsearched all publications between August 2012 and September 2017 in two speciality journals: Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine. We conducted searches up to September 2017 in Dissertations and Theses, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the US National Institutes of Health Registry. We screened the reference lists of included trials and contacted authors to identify other potentially relevant trials. We also consulted experts in the field to identify other relevant research.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Implementation strategies were defined as strategies specifically employed to improve the implementation of health interventions into routine practice within specific settings. We included any trial with a parallel control group (randomised or non-randomised) and conducted at any scale that compared strategies to support implementation of workplace policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, risky alcohol use or tobacco use versus no intervention (i.e. wait-list, usual practice or minimal support control) or another implementation strategy. Implementation strategies could include those identified by the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy such as quality improvement initiatives and education and training, as well as other strategies. Implementation interventions could target policies or practices directly instituted in the workplace environment, as well as workplace-instituted efforts encouraging the use of external health promotion services (e.g. gym membership subsidies).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors working in pairs independently performed citation screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment, resolving disagreements via consensus or a third reviewer. We narratively synthesised findings for all included trials by first describing trial characteristics, participants, interventions and outcomes. We then described the effect size of the outcome measure for policy or practice implementation. We performed meta-analysis of implementation outcomes for trials of comparable design and outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials, four of which took place in the USA. Four trials employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Trials were conducted in workplaces from the manufacturing, industrial and services-based sectors. The sample sizes of workplaces ranged from 12 to 114. Workplace policies and practices targeted included: healthy catering policies; point-of-purchase nutrition labelling; environmental supports for healthy eating and physical activity; tobacco control policies; weight management programmes; and adherence to guidelines for staff health promotion. All implementation interventions utilised multiple implementation strategies, the most common of which were educational meetings, tailored interventions and local consensus processes. Four trials compared an implementation strategy intervention with a no intervention control, one trial compared different implementation interventions, and one three-arm trial compared two implementation strategies with each other and a control. Four trials reported a single implementation outcome, whilst the other two reported multiple outcomes. Investigators assessed outcomes using surveys, audits and environmental observations. We judged most trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias and at unclear risk of reporting and attrition bias.Of the five trials comparing implementation strategies with a no intervention control, pooled analysis was possible for three RCTs reporting continuous score-based measures of implementation outcomes. The meta-analysis found no difference in standardised effects (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.30; 164 participants; 3 studies; low certainty evidence), suggesting no benefit of implementation support in improving policy or practice implementation, relative to control. Findings for other continuous or dichotomous implementation outcomes reported across these five trials were mixed. For the two non-randomised trials examining comparative effectiveness, both reported improvements in implementation, favouring the more intensive implementation group (very low certainty evidence). Three trials examined the impact of implementation strategies on employee health behaviours, reporting mixed effects for diet and weight status (very low certainty evidence) and no effect for physical activity (very low certainty evidence) or tobacco use (low certainty evidence). One trial reported an increase in absolute workplace costs for health promotion in the implementation group (low certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed adverse consequences. Limitations of the review included the small number of trials identified and the lack of consistent terminology applied in the implementation science field, which may have resulted in us overlooking potentially relevant trials in the search.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence regarding the effectiveness of implementation strategies for improving implementation of health-promoting policies and practices in the workplace setting is sparse and inconsistent. Low certainty evidence suggests that such strategies may make little or no difference on measures of implementation fidelity or different employee health behaviour outcomes. It is also unclear if such strategies are cost-effective or have potential unintended adverse consequences. The limited number of trials identified suggests implementation research in the workplace setting is in its infancy, warranting further research to guide evidence translation in this setting.

A Brief Smoking Cessation Advice by Youth Counselors for the Smokers in the Hong Kong Quit to Win Contest 2010: a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Smoking cessation counseling by healthcare professionals is effective, but very few healthcare professionals can deliver these interventions in the busy clinical settings. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief smoking cessation advice delivered by briefly-trained youth counselors at the enrolment of an incentive-based smoking cessation campaign. The study design was a cluster 2-arm randomized controlled trial of 831 Chinese adult smokers who were recruited in public areas to participate in the Hong Kong Quit to Win Contest 2010. The intervention group (n = 441) received a 5-min quitting advice from the youth counselors, who were mainly undergraduate nursing students, and a 12-page self-help smoking cessation booklet at the enrolment, while the control group (n = 390) only received the same booklet. Biochemically confirmed quitters at 6-month follow-up could join a lucky draw that offered HK$10,000 (US$1282) cash prize to three winners and HK$4000 gift vouchers to the other 10 winners. Primary outcome was self-reported smoking abstinence at 6-month follow-up. By intention-to-treat, the intervention group had a non-significantly higher self-reported (18.4 versus 13.8%, OR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.96-2.04, p = 0.08) and validated quit rate (9.1 versus 6.7%, OR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.84-2.33, p = 0.20) than the control group at 6-month follow-up. The analysis with multiple imputation for missing data also found similar results. We concluded that the brief on-site advice by trained youth counselors had a modest effect on smoking cessation, but the effect was not significant. Future studies with larger sample size and results from higher participation of the biochemical validation to confirm the effectiveness are warranted.

Effectiveness of a small cash incentive on abstinence and use of cessation aids for adult smokers: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Large amount of financial incentive was effective to increase tobacco abstinence, but the effect of small amount is unknown.

PURPOSE

We evaluated if a small amount of cash incentive (HK$500/US$64) increased abstinence, quit attempt, and use of cessation aids.

METHODS

A three-armed, block randomized controlled trial recruited 1143 adult daily smokers who participated in the Hong Kong "Quit to Win" Contest. Biochemically validated quitters of the early-informed (n=379, notified about the incentive at 1-week and 1-month follow-up) and the late-informed incentive group (n=385, notified at 3-month follow-up) received the incentive at 3months. The validated quitters of the control group (n=379) received the incentive at 6months without prior notification. All subjects received brief advice, a self-help education card and a 12-page booklet. The outcomes were self-reported 7-day point prevalence of abstinence, quit attempt (intentional abstinence for at least 24h) and use of cessation aids at 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

By intention-to-treat, the early-informed group at 3-month follow-up reported a higher rate of quit attempt (no smoking for at least 24h) than the other 2 groups (44.1% vs. 37.4%, Odds ratio (OR)=1.32, 95% CI 1.03-1.69, p=0.03), but they had similar abstinence (9.2% vs. 9.7%, OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.62, 1.45). The early- and late-informed group showed similar quitting outcomes. The early-informed group reported more quit attempts by reading self-help materials than the other 2 groups (31.4% vs. 25.3%, OR=1.56, 95% CI 1.12-2.18, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The small cash incentive with early notification increased quit attempt by "self-directed help" but not abstinence. Future financial incentive-based programmes with a larger incentive, accessible quitting resources and encouragement of using existing smoking cessation services are needed.

Personal financial incentives for changing habitual health-related behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Uncertainty remains about whether personal financial incentives could achieve sustained changes in health-related behaviors that would reduce the fast-growing global non-communicable disease burden. This review aims to estimate whether: i. financial incentives achieve sustained changes in smoking, eating, alcohol consumption and physical activity; ii. effectiveness is modified by (a) the target behavior, (b) incentive value and attainment certainty, (c) recipients' deprivation level.

METHODS

Multiple sources were searched for trials offering adults financial incentives and assessing outcomes relating to pre-specified behaviors at a minimum of six months from baseline. Analyses included random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions grouped by timed endpoints.

RESULTS

Of 24,265 unique identified articles, 34 were included in the analysis. Financial incentives increased behavior-change, with effects sustained until 18months from baseline (OR: 1.53, 95% CI 1.05-2.23) and three months post-incentive removal (OR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.21-3.67). High deprivation increased incentive effects (OR: 2.17; 95% CI 1.22-3.85), but only at >6-12months from baseline. Other assessed variables did not independently modify effects at any time-point.

CONCLUSIONS

Personal financial incentives can change habitual health-related behaviors and help reduce health inequalities. However, their role in reducing disease burden is potentially limited given current evidence that effects dissipate beyond three months post-incentive removal.

Incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Material or financial incentives are widely used in an attempt to precipitate or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They operate in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. In this third update of our review we now include trials conducted in pregnant women, to reflect the increasing activity and resources now targeting this high-risk group of smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether incentives and contingency management programmes lead to higher long-term quit rates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The most recent searches were in December 2014, although we also include two trials published in 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures. We include studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community-, work-, institution-based), and also, for this update, trials in pregnant smokers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author (KC) extracted data and a second (JH-B) checked them. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up, and at least six months from the start of the intervention. In the trials of pregnant smokers abstinence was measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 8400 participants. Ten studies were set in clinics or health centres, one in Thai villages served by community health workers, two in academic institutions, and the rest in worksites. All but six of the trials were run in the USA. The incentives included lottery tickets or prize draws, cash payments, vouchers for goods and groceries, and in six trials the recovery of money deposited by those taking part. The odds ratio (OR) for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.69; 17 trials, [20 comparisons], 7715 participants). Only three studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group at or beyond the six-month assessment: One five-arm USA trial compared rewards- and deposit-based interventions at individual and group level, with incentives available up to USD 800 per quitter, and demonstrated a quit rate in the rewards groups of 8.1% at 12 months, compared with 4.7% in the deposits groups. A direct comparison between the rewards-based and the deposit-based groups found a benefit for the rewards arms, with an OR at 12 months of 1.76 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.53; 2070 participants). Although more people in this trial accepted the rewards programmes than the deposit programmes, the proportion of quitters in each group favoured the deposit-refund programme. Another USA study rewarded both participation and quitting up to USD 750, and achieved sustained quit rates of 9.4% in the incentives group compared with 3.6% for the controls. A deposit-refund trial in Thailand also achieved significantly higher quit rates in the intervention group (44.2%) compared with the control group (18.8%), but uptake was relatively low, at 10.5%. In the remaining trials, there was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that contingent rewards enhanced success rates over fixed payment schedules. We rated the overall quality of the older studies as low, but with later trials (post-2000) more likely to meet current standards of methodology and reporting.Eight of nine trials with usable data in pregnant smokers (seven conducted in the USA and one in the UK) delivered an adjusted OR at longest follow-up (up to 24 weeks post-partum) of 3.60 (95% CI 2.39 to 5.43; 1295 participants, moderate-quality studies) in favour of incentives. Three of the trials demonstrated a clear benefit for contingent rewards; one delivered monthly vouchers to confirmed quitters and to their designated 'significant other supporter', achieving a quit rate in the intervention group of 21.4% at two months post-partum, compared with 5.9% among the controls. Another trial offered a scaled programme of rewards for the percentage of smoking reduction achieved over the course of the 12-week intervention, and achieved an intervention quit rate of 31% at six weeks post-partum, compared with no quitters in the control group. The largest (UK-based) trial provided intervention quitters with up to GBP 400-worth of vouchers, and achieved a quit rate of 15.4% at longest follow-up, compared to the control quit rate of 4%. Four trials confirmed that payments made to reward a successful quit attempt (i.e. contingent), compared to fixed payments for attending the antenatal appointment (non-contingent), resulted in higher quit rates. Front-loading of rewards to counteract early withdrawal symptoms made little difference to quit rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Incentives appear to boost cessation rates while they are in place. The two trials recruiting from work sites that achieved sustained success rates beyond the reward schedule concentrated their resources into substantial cash payments for abstinence. Such an approach may only be feasible where independently-funded smoking cessation programmes are already available, and within a relatively affluent and educated population. Deposit-refund trials can suffer from relatively low rates of uptake, but those who do sign up and contribute their own money may achieve higher quit rates than reward-only participants. Incentive schemes conducted among pregnant smokers improved the cessation rates, both at the end-of-pregnancy and post-partum assessments. Current and future research might continue to explore the scale, loading and longevity of possible cash or voucher reward schedules, within a variety of smoking populations.

The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Financial incentive interventions have been suggested as one method of promoting healthy behaviour change.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions for encouraging healthy behaviour change; to explore whether effects vary according to the type of behaviour incentivised, post-intervention follow-up time, or incentive value.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were of relevant electronic databases, research registers, www.google.com, and the reference lists of previous reviews; and requests for information sent to relevant mailing lists.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Controlled evaluations of the effectiveness of financial incentive interventions, compared to no intervention or usual care, to encourage healthy behaviour change, in non-clinical adult populations, living in high-income countries, were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess all included studies. Meta-analysis was used to explore the effect of financial incentive interventions within groups of similar behaviours and overall. Meta-regression was used to determine if effect varied according to post-intervention follow up time, or incentive value.

RESULTS

Seventeen papers reporting on 16 studies on smoking cessation (n = 10), attendance for vaccination or screening (n = 5), and physical activity (n = 1) were included. In meta-analyses, the average effect of incentive interventions was greater than control for short-term (≤ six months) smoking cessation (relative risk (95% confidence intervals): 2.48 (1.77 to 3.46); long-term (>six months) smoking cessation (1.50 (1.05 to 2.14)); attendance for vaccination or screening (1.92 (1.46 to 2.53)); and for all behaviours combined (1.62 (1.38 to 1.91)). There was not convincing evidence that effects were different between different groups of behaviours. Meta-regression found some, limited, evidence that effect sizes decreased as post-intervention follow-up period and incentive value increased. However, the latter effect may be confounded by the former.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that financial incentive interventions are more effective than usual care or no intervention for encouraging healthy behaviour change.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42012002393.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking.2. To collect and evaluate data on costs and cost effectiveness associated with workplace interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (July 2013), MEDLINE (1966 - July 2013), EMBASE (1985 - June 2013), and PsycINFO (to June 2013), amongst others. We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces, or companies to intervention or control conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author extracted information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the studies, and a second author checked them. For this update we have conducted meta-analyses of the main interventions, using the generic inverse variance method to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 57 studies (61 comparisons) in this updated review. We found 31 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy, and social support, and 30 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole, i.e. environmental cues, incentives, and comprehensive programmes. The trials were generally of moderate to high quality, with results that were consistent with those found in other settings. Group therapy programmes (odds ratio (OR) for cessation 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.80; eight trials, 1309 participants), individual counselling (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.54; eight trials, 3516 participants), pharmacotherapies (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.11; five trials, 1092 participants), and multiple intervention programmes aimed mainly or solely at smoking cessation (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.13; six trials, 5018 participants) all increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.82; six trials, 1906 participants), and two relapse prevention programmes (484 participants) did not help to sustain long-term abstinence. Incentives did not appear to improve the odds of quitting, apart from one study which found a sustained positive benefit. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors reduced the prevalence of smoking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. We found strong evidence that some interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling, pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction, and multiple interventions targeting smoking cessation as the primary or only outcome. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors in reducing the prevalence of smoking, although this finding was not based on meta-analysed data. 3. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer, although one trial demonstrated a sustained effect of financial rewards for attending a smoking cessation course and for long-term quitting. Further research is needed to establish which components of this trial contributed to the improvement in success rates.4. Further research would be valuable in low-income and developing countries, where high rates of smoking prevail and smoke-free legislation is not widely accepted or enforced.

Interventions to increase smoking cessation at the population level: how much progress has been made in the last two decades?

This paper reviews the literature on smoking cessation interventions, with a focus on the last 20 years (1991 to 2010). These two decades witnessed major development in a wide range of cessation interventions, from pharmacotherapy to tobacco price increases. It was expected that these interventions would work conjointly to increase the cessation rate on the population level. This paper examines population data from the USA, from 1991 to 2010, using the National Health Interview Surveys. Results indicate there is no consistent trend of increase in the population cessation rate over the last two decades. Various explanations are presented for this lack of improvement, and the key concept of impact = effectiveness × reach is critically examined. Finally, it suggests that the field of cessation has focused so much on developing and promoting interventions to improve smokers' odds of success that it has largely neglected to investigate how to get more smokers to try to quit and to try more frequently. Future research should examine whether increasing the rate of quit attempts would be key to improving the population cessation rate.

Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Background Material or financial incentives may be used in an attempt to reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been widely used in workplace smoking cessation programmes, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. Public health initiatives in the UK are currently planning to deploy incentive schemes to change unhealthy behaviours. Quit and Win contests are the subject of a companion review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions and incentives lead to higher long-term quit rates. We also set out to examine the relationship between incentives and participation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Search terms included incentive*, competition*, contest*, reward*, prize*, contingent payment*, deposit contract*. The most recent searches were in November 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one author (KC) and checked by the second (RP). We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Where possible we performed meta-analysis using a generic inverse variance model, grouped by timed endpoints, but not pooled across the subgroups.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria, covering >4500 participants. Only one study, the largest in our review and covering 878 smokers, demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group beyond the six-month assessment. This trial referred its participants to local smoking cessation services, and offered substantial cash payments (up to US$750) for prolonged abstinence. In the remaining trials, there was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that contingent rewards enhanced success rates over fixed payment schedules. There is some evidence that recruitment rates can be improved by rewarding participation, which may be expected to deliver higher absolute numbers of successful quitters. Cost effectiveness analysis was not appropriate to this review, since the efficacy of most of the interventions was not demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of one recent trial, incentives and competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates. Early success tended to dissipate when the rewards were no longer offered. Rewarding participation and compliance in contests and cessation programmes may have potential to deliver higher absolute numbers of quitters. The one trial that achieved sustained success rates beyond the reward schedule concentrated its resources into substantial cash payments for abstinence rather than into running its own smoking cessation programme. Such an approach may only be feasible where independently-funded smoking cessation programmes are already available. Future research might explore the scale and longevity of possible cash reward schedules, within a variety of smoking populations.

Worksite-based incentives and competitions to reduce tobacco use. A systematic review

The Guide to Community Preventive Service (Community Guide) methods for systematic reviews were used to evaluate the evidence of effectiveness of worksite-based incentives and competitions to reduce tobacco use among workers. These interventions offer a reward to individuals or to teams of individuals on the basis of participation or success in a specified smoking behavior change (such as abstaining from tobacco use for a period of time). The review team identified a total of 26 published studies, 14 of which met study design and quality of execution criteria for inclusion in the final assessment. Only one study, which did not qualify for review, evaluated the use of incentives when implemented alone. All of the 14 qualifying studies evaluated incentives and competitions when implemented in combination with a variety of additional interventions, such as client education, smoking cessation groups, and telephone cessation support. Of the qualifying studies, 13 evaluated differences in tobacco-use cessation among intervention participants, with a median follow-up period of 12 months. The median change in self-reported tobacco-use cessation was an increase of 4.4 percentage points (a median relative percentage improvement of 67%). The present evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of incentives or competitions, when implemented alone, to reduce tobacco use. However, the qualifying studies provide strong evidence, according to Community Guide rules, that worksite-based incentives and competitions in combination with additional interventions are effective in increasing the number of workers who quit using tobacco. In addition, these multicomponent interventions have the potential to generate positive economic returns over investment when the averted costs of tobacco-associated illnesses are considered. A concurrent systematic review identified four studies with economic evidence. Two of these studies provided evidence of net cost savings to employers when program costs are adjusted for averted healthcare expenses and productivity losses, based on referenced secondary estimates.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking or to reduce tobacco consumption.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2008, MEDLINE (1966 - April 2008), EMBASE (1985 - Feb 2008) and PsycINFO (to March 2008). We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces or companies to intervention or control conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was abstracted by one author and checked by another. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the included studies, we did not attempt formal meta-analysis, and evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 51 studies covering 53 interventions in this updated review. We found 37 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy and social support. The results were consistent with those found in other settings. Group programmes, individual counselling and nicotine replacement therapy increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective. We also found 16 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes reduced the prevalence of smoking. Incentive schemes increased attempts to stop smoking, though there was less evidence that they increased the rate of actual quitting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. We found strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer.3. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes in reducing the prevalence of smoking.

Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Material or financial incentives may be used in an attempt to reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been widely used in workplace smoking cessation programmes, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. Quit and Win contests are the subject of a companion review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions and incentives lead to higher long-term quit rates. We also set out to examine the relationship between incentives and participation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Search terms included incentive*, competition*, contest*, reward*, prize*, contingent payment*, deposit contract*. The most recent searches were in December 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one author and checked by the second. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Where possible we performed meta-analysis using a generic inverse variance model, grouped by timed endpoints, but not pooled across the subgroups.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group beyond the six-month assessment. There was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that different types of incentives were more or less effective. There is some evidence that although cessation rates have not been shown to differ significantly, recruitment rates can be improved by rewarding participation, which may be expected to deliver higher absolute numbers of successful quitters. Cost effectiveness analysis is not appropriate to this review, since the efficacy of the intervention has not been demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Incentives and competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates, with early success tending to dissipate when the rewards are no longer offered. Rewarding participation and compliance in contests and cessation programmes may have more potential to deliver higher absolute numbers of quitters.

Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis

AIMS

To examine the effectiveness of contingency management (CM) techniques in treating substance use disorders (i.e. illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco).

DESIGN

Meta-analysis was used to determine the average effect size and potential moderators in 47 comparisons of the effectiveness of CM from studies based on a treatment-control group design and published between 1970 and 2002.

FINDINGS

The mean effect size (ES) of CM was positive, with a magnitude of d = 0.42 using a fixed effects model. The magnitude of the ES declined over time, following treatment. CM was more effective in treating opiate use (d = 0.65) and cocaine use (d = 0.66), compared with tobacco (d = 0.31) or multiple drugs (d = 0.42). Larger effect sizes were associated with higher researcher involvement, earlier studies and shorter treatment duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings suggest that CM is among the more effective approaches to promoting abstinence during the treatment of substance use disorders. CM improves the ability of clients to remain abstinent, thereby allowing them to take fuller advantage of other clinical treatment components.

Results of a union-based smoking cessation intervention for apprentice iron workers (United States)

OBJECTIVE

Blue-collar workers are more likely to smoke, smoke more heavily, and have less success in quitting compared to white-collar workers, and this occupational gap is growing over time. Effective smoking cessation interventions among blue-collar workers are needed to address growing class-based disparities.

METHODS

We used a pre-post study design to test feasibility and effect size of a smoking cessation trial in a union apprenticeship training program for iron workers (n = 337). The 4-month intervention drew upon a health promotion-health protection model for smoking cessation among blue-collar workers. We conducted pairwise analyses to assess pre-post intervention differences in 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence measured 1 month after intervention was completed. Additional secondary outcomes, including smoking frequency, intensity, intention and self-efficacy to quit, were also assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline smoking prevalence was 41%. We observed a 19.4% post-intervention quit rate among baseline smokers. There were statistically significant positive changes pre- and post-intervention in intention to quit smoking, self-efficacy to quit, and a reduction in the number of days smoked. Participation in pro-active intervention components was associated with a three-fold (OR = 3.0, 1.15, 7.83) increase in the likelihood of quitting. Overall, participation in intervention components was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Labor union apprenticeship programs represent a promising venue for smoking cessation interventions, particularly those that draw upon a health promotion-health protection model.

Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Material or financial incentives may be used in an attempt to reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been widely used in workplace smoking cessation programmes, and to a lesser extent within community programmes. Quit and Win contests are the subject of a companion review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether competitions and incentives lead to higher long-term quit rates. We also set out to examine the relationship between incentives and participation rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2004), EMBASE (1980 to 2004/8), CINAHL (1982 to 2004/8) and PsycINFO (1872 to 2004/6). Search terms included incentive*, competition*, contest*, reward*, prize*, contingent payment*, deposit contract*.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one author and checked by the second. We contacted study authors for additional data where necessary. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking for at least six months from the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Where possible we performed meta-analysis using a generic inverse variance model, grouped by timed endpoints, but not pooled across the subgroups.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies demonstrated significantly higher quit rates for the incentives group than for the control group beyond the six-month assessment. There was no clear evidence that participants who committed their own money to the programme did better than those who did not, or that different types of incentives were more or less effective. There is some evidence that although cessation rates have not been shown to differ significantly, recruitment rates can be improved by rewarding participation, which may be expected to deliver higher absolute numbers of successful quitters. Cost effectiveness analysis is not appropriate to this review, since the efficacy of the intervention has not been demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Incentives and competitions do not appear to enhance long-term cessation rates, with early success tending to dissipate when the rewards are no longer offered. Rewarding participation and compliance in contests and cessation programmes may have more potential to deliver higher absolute numbers of quitters.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking or to reduce tobacco consumption.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in October 2004, MEDLINE (1966 - October 2004), EMBASE (1985 - October 2004) and PsycINFO (to October 2004). We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and we checked the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We categorized interventions into two groups: a) Interventions aimed at the individual to promote smoking cessation and b) interventions aimed at the workplace as a whole. We applied different inclusion criteria for the different types of study. For interventions aimed at helping individuals to stop smoking, we included only randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces or companies to intervention or control conditions. For studies of smoking restrictions and bans in the workplace, we also included controlled trials with baseline and post-intervention outcomes and interrupted times series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was abstracted by one author and checked by two others. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the included studies, we did not attempt formal meta-analysis, and evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

Workplace interventions aimed at helping individuals to stop smoking included ten studies of group therapy, seven studies of individual counselling, nine studies of self-help materials and five studies of nicotine replacement therapy. The results were consistent with those found in other settings. Group programmes, individual counselling and nicotine replacement therapy increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective.Workplace interventions aimed at the workforce as a whole included 14 studies of tobacco bans, two studies of social support, four studies of environmental support, five studies of incentives, and eight studies of comprehensive (multi-component) programmes. Tobacco bans decreased cigarette consumption during the working day but their effect on total consumption was less certain. We failed to detect an increase in quit rates from adding social and environmental support to these programmes. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes reduced the prevalence of smoking. Competitions and incentives increased attempts to stop smoking, though there was less evidence that they increased the rate of actual quitting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found: 1. Strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include advice from a health professional, individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. Self-help interventions are less effective. All these interventions are effective whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low. 2. Limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer. 3. Consistent evidence that workplace tobacco policies and bans can decrease cigarette consumption during the working day by smokers and exposure of non-smoking employees to environmental tobacco smoke at work, but conflicting evidence about whether they decrease prevalence of smoking or overall consumption of tobacco by smokers. 4. A lack of evidence that comprehensive approaches reduce the prevalence of smoking, despite the strong theoretical rationale for their use. 5. A lack of evidence about the cost-effectiveness of workplace programmes.

The effectiveness of workplace smoking cessation programmes: a meta-analysis of recent studies

OBJECTIVE

Using meta-analytic procedures, we compare the effectiveness of recent controlled trials of worksite smoking cessation during the 1990s with a previous meta-analysis of programmes conducted in the 1980s.

DATA SOURCES

ABI/Inform, BRS, CHID, Dissertation Abstracts International, ERIC, Medline, Occupational Health and Safety Database, PsycInfo, Smoking and Health Database, SSCI, and Sociological Abstracts.

STUDY SELECTION

Controlled smoking cessation interventions at the workplace with at least six months follow up published from 1989 to 2001 and reporting quit rates (QRs).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently scanned titles/abstracts of relevant reports, and we reached consensus regarding inclusion/exclusion of the full text reports by negotiation. A third reviewer resolved disagreements. Two reviewers extracted data according to a coding manual. Consensus was again reached through negotiation and the use of a third reviewer.

DATA SYNTHESIS

19 journal articles were found reporting studies conforming to the study's inclusion criteria. Interventions included self help manuals, physician advice, health education, cessation groups, incentives, and competitions. A total of 4960 control subjects were compared with 4618 intervention subjects. The adjusted random effects odds ratio was 2.03 (95% confidence interval 1.42 to 2.90) at six months follow up, 1.56 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.07) at 12 months, and 1.33 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.87) at more than 12 months follow up. Funnel plots were consistent with strong publication bias at the first two follow ups but not the third. In Fisher et al's 1990 study, the corresponding ORs were 1.18, 1.66, and 1.18.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation interventions at the worksite showed initial effectiveness, but the effect seemed to decrease over time and was not present beyond 12 months. Compared to the Fisher (1990) analysis, the effectiveness was higher for the six month follow up. Disappointingly, we found methodological inadequacies and insufficient reporting of key variables that were similar to those found in the earlier meta-analysis. This prevented us from determining much about the most effective components of interventions. It is advisable for researchers conducting studies in the future to report data on attrition and retention rates of participants who quit, because these variables can affect QRs.

The impact of including incentives and competition in a workplace smoking cessation program on quit rates

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of a multicomponent smoking cessation program supplemented by incentives and team competition.

DESIGN

A quasi-experimental design was employed to compare the effectiveness of three different smoking cessation programs, each assigned to separate worksite.

SETTING

The study was conducted from 1990 to 1991 at three aerospace industry worksites in California.

SUBJECTS

All employees who were current, regular tobacco users were eligible to participate in the program offered at their site.

INTERVENTION

The multicomponent program included a self-help package, telephone counseling, and other elements. The incentive-competition program included the multicomponent program plus cash incentives and team competition for the first 5 months of the program. The traditional program offered a standard smoking cessation program.

MEASURES

Self-reported questionnaires and carbon monoxide tests of tobacco use or abstinence were used over a 12-month period.

RESULTS

The incentive-competition program had an abstinence rate of 41% at 6 months (n = 68), which was significantly better than the multicomponent program (23%, n = 81) or the traditional program (8%, n = 36). At 12 months, the quit rates for the incentive and multicomponent-programs were statistically indistinguishable (37% vs. 30%), but remained higher than the traditional program (11%). Chi-square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression were used to compare smoking abstinence across the three programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering a multicomponent program with telephone counseling may be just as effective for long-term smoking cessation as such a program plus incentives and competition, and more effective than a traditional program.

A review of the health impact of smoking control at the workplace

PURPOSE

To summarize and provide a critical review of worksite health promotion program evaluations published between 1968 and 1994 that addressed the health impact of worksite smoking cessation programs and smoking policies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search conducted under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified 53 smoking cessation program evaluation reports, of which 41 covered worksite single-topic cessation programs. Nine additional reports were located through manual search of citations from published reports and reviews. These 50 reports covered 52 original data-based studies of cessation programs. The search produced 19 reports for tobacco policy evaluations, of which 12 addressed health impact. An additional 17 reports were located by the authors. These 29 reports covered 29 studies of policy impact.

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FINDINGS

Smoking cessation group programs were found to be more effective than minimal treatment programs, although less intensive treatment, when combined with high participation rates, can influence the total population. Tobacco policies were found to reduce cigarette consumption at work and worksite environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature is rated suggestive for group and incentive interventions; indicative for minimal interventions, competitions, and medical interventions; and acceptable for the testing of incremental effects. Because of the lack of experimental control, the smoking policy literature is rated as weak, although there is strong consistency in results for reduced cigarette consumption and decreased exposure to ETS at work.

Predictors of participation in prostate cancer screening at worksites

Unfortunately, African American men have a higher incidence of and a higher mortality rate for prostate cancer than White men but are less likely to participate in prostate cancer screening. This correlational survey research identifies predictors for participation in a free prostate cancer screening in 179 men, 64% of whom are African American. Each man was invited to see his personal physician for a free prostate cancer screening following a prostate cancer educational program given at his worksite. Forty-seven percent of the African American men went to their personal physician following the educational program and received a digital rectal examination (DRE) and a prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. In the original cohort of educational program attendees, only 16% of the African Americans had obtained a DRE in the previous 12 months. However, 44% subsequently did participate in free DRE screening. Similarly, only 6% of the African American men had received a PSA screening in the previous 12 months, yet 42% obtained a PSA screening after the educational program, a sevenfold increase. Implications for allocating limited resources for education and screening to the high-risk group of African American men are discussed. This study's model of a prostate cancer educational program at worksites followed by attendees visiting their personal physician for screening could be replicated throughout the United States to increase African American men's participation in prostate cancer screening.

Take Heart II: replication of a worksite health promotion trial

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a revised worksite health promotion program that featured an employee steering committee/menu approach to intervention. The "Take Heart II" program was evaluated using a quasi-experimental matched-pair design with worksite as the unit of analysis. Experimental and control worksites did not differ on baseline organizational or employee demographic variables or on baseline levels of dependent variables. Outcome and process results revealed consistent, but modest effects favoring intervention worksites on most measures. Cross-sectional analyses generally failed to produce statistically significant intervention effects, but cohort analyses revealed significant beneficial effects of the Take Heart II intervention on eating patterns, behavior change attempts, and perceived social support. Neither analysis detected a beneficial effect of intervention on cholesterol levels.

Take heart: results from the initial phase of a work-site wellness program

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term effects of a low-intensity work-site heart disease risk reduction program using a matched pair design with work site as the unit of analysis.

METHODS

Twenty-six heterogeneous work sites with between 125 and 750 employees were matched on key organization characteristics and then randomly assigned to early or delayed intervention conditions. Early intervention consisted of an 18-month multifaceted program that featured an employee steering committee and a menu approach to conducting key intervention activities tailored to each site.

RESULTS

Cross-sectional and cohort analyses produced consistent results. At the conclusion of the intervention, early and delayed intervention conditions did not differ on changes in smoking rates, dietary intake, or cholesterol levels. There was considerable variability in outcomes among work sites within each condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite documented implementation of key intervention activities and organization-level changes in terms of perceived support for health promotion, this intervention did not produce short-term improvements beyond secular trends observed in control work sites. Research is needed to understand determinants of variability between work sites.

Biochemical validation of smoking status: pros, cons, and data from four low-intensity intervention trials

Biochemical validation of smoking status has long been considered essential, but recent reports have questioned its utility in certain kinds of field trials. We describe efforts to biochemically validate self-reports of smoking cessation from participants in four large-scale randomized trials in outpatient clinics, hospitals, worksites, and dental clinics. These studies included over 5,000 adults smokers who participated in the population-based low-intensity intervention evaluations. At a 1-year follow-up, 798 subjects reported no tobacco use. We attempted to verify these reports using saliva continine/carbon monoxide validation procedures. Overall, there was a moderately high nonparticipation rate (27%), a low disconfirmation rate (4%), and a high self-reported relapse rate (12%) in the interval between survey and biochemical validation. There were no differences between intervention and control conditions on any of the above variables. Longer durations of self-reported abstinence were strongly related to increased probability of biochemical confirmation. Differences in results across projects were related to how biochemical validation was conducted. These results, as well as statistical power considerations, raise questions about whether biochemical validation procedures are practical, informative, or cost-effective in such population-based, low-intensity intervention research.