Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation

2022 Prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases in Of the Russian Federation. National guidelines

.

Addressing Tobacco Use in Underserved Communities Through a Peer-Facilitated Smoking Cessation Program

Communities Engaged and Advocating for a Smoke-Free Environment (CEASE) is a long-standing research partnership between a university and the neighboring community that was established to reduce tobacco use among poor and underserved residents. The CEASE tobacco cessation program was implemented in four phases, with each new phase applying lessons learned from the previous phases to improve outcomes. This study describes CEASE's community-based approach and reports results from implementing the second phase of the intervention which, among other things, varied in the type of incentives, setting, and providers used. CEASE implemented a mixed-methods study following the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach. During Phase II, a total of 398 smokers were recruited into two 12-session group counseling interventions facilitated by trained peers in community venues, which differed in the type of incentives used to increase participation and reward the achievement of milestones. At 12-week follow-up, 21% of all participants reported not smoking, with a retention rate (i.e., attendance at six or more of the 12 cessation classes offered) of 51.9%. No significant differences in cessation outcomes were found between the two study arms. Using a CBPR approach resulted in a peer-led model of care with improved outcomes compared to Phase I, which was provided by clinicians. The combined use of monetary and non-monetary incentives was helpful in increasing participation in the program but did not significantly impact smoking cessation. A CBPR approach can increase the acceptability and effectiveness of cessation services for underserved populations.

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.

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.

Efficacy of Pins and Diplomas as a Reward for Long-Term Smoking Cessation

Aims and background

Since 2004, the Antismoking Center of the National Cancer Institute of Milan has rewarded those who have been ex-smokers for longer than a year with a “former smoker” pin and a diploma. We investigated firstly whether these rewards contributed to maintain smoking withdrawal, secondly, which one of these was more appreciated and why, and thirdly, how they may have influenced the ex-smokers' perception of smoking and how this was reflected on those surrounding them (i.e., ex-smokers' personal and/or interpersonal areas).

Methods

A multiple-choice questionnaire was developed to investigate how much the rewards were appreciated and their effectiveness in maintaining smoking cessation. Moreover, smokers and non-smokers were asked about the impact of the pin. The questionnaire was completed on the phone by the last 100 ex-smokers who entered the pin and diploma program.

Results

All subjects appreciated the rewards, but only a few of them considered them as an aid to maintain long-term smoking cessation. Those who preferred the diploma stated that it represented a contribution to their self-esteem, an official recognition of being an ex-smoker, besides being something to show with pride to others. Those who preferred the pin principally stated it allowed them to be an example to other smokers. Most of the subjects reported that they wore the pin in several circumstances, raising interest and admiration.

Conclusions

Rewarding ex-smokers one year after smoking cessation with a small prize may be a useful practice to improve the doctor-patient relationship, which is vital to maintain smoking cessation, and to boost the awareness of the availability of aids to reach this objective.

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.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.

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.

Population approaches to improve diet, physical activity, and smoking habits: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

Poor lifestyle behaviors, including suboptimal diet, physical inactivity, and tobacco use, are leading causes of preventable diseases globally. Although even modest population shifts in risk substantially alter health outcomes, the optimal population-level approaches to improve lifestyle are not well established.

METHODS AND RESULTS

For this American Heart Association scientific statement, the writing group systematically reviewed and graded the current scientific evidence for effective population approaches to improve dietary habits, increase physical activity, and reduce tobacco use. Strategies were considered in 6 broad domains: (1) Media and educational campaigns; (2) labeling and consumer information; (3) taxation, subsidies, and other economic incentives; (4) school and workplace approaches; (5) local environmental changes; and (6) direct restrictions and mandates. The writing group also reviewed the potential contributions of healthcare systems and surveillance systems to behavior change efforts. Several specific population interventions that achieved a Class I or IIa recommendation with grade A or B evidence were identified, providing a set of specific evidence-based strategies that deserve close attention and prioritization for wider implementation. Effective interventions included specific approaches in all 6 domains evaluated for improving diet, increasing activity, and reducing tobacco use. The writing group also identified several specific interventions in each of these domains for which current evidence was less robust, as well as other inconsistencies and evidence gaps, informing the need for further rigorous and interdisciplinary approaches to evaluate population programs and policies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified and graded the evidence for a range of population-based strategies to promote lifestyle change. The findings provide a framework for policy makers, advocacy groups, researchers, clinicians, communities, and other stakeholders to understand and implement the most effective approaches. New strategic initiatives and partnerships are needed to translate this evidence into action.

Consumer-oriented interventions for evidence-based prescribing and medicines use: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Numerous systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, but this research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of reviews on consumers' medicines use also varies widely. Such differences create challenges for decision makers seeking review-level evidence to inform decisions about medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote evidence-based prescribing for, and medicines use, by consumers. We sought evidence on the effects on health and other outcomes for healthcare consumers, professionals and services.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching both databases from start date to Issue 3 2008. We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview. Standardised forms were used to extract data, and reviews were assessed for methodological quality using the AMSTAR instrument. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and a further synthesis step was used to give bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors selected reviews, extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 reviews (18 Cochrane, 19 non-Cochrane), of varied methodological quality.Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation, skills acquisition and information provision. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most commonly reported outcome, but others such as clinical (health and wellbeing), service use and knowledge outcomes were also reported. Reviews rarely reported adverse events or harms, and the evidence was sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.Promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines use outcomes (eg adverse events, knowledge) included self-monitoring and self-management, simplified dosing and interventions directly involving pharmacists. Other strategies showed promise in relation to adherence but their effects were less consistent. These included reminders; education combined with self-management skills training, counselling or support; financial incentives; and lay health worker interventions.No interventions were effective to improve all medicines use outcomes across all diseases, populations or settings. For some interventions, such as information or education provided alone, the evidence suggests ineffectiveness; for many others there is insufficient evidence to determine effects on medicines use outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform these decisions and also to consider the range of interventions available; while researchers and funders can use this overview to determine where research is needed. However, the limitations of the literature relating to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and specific populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered.

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.

Clinical management of smoking cessation: patient factors affecting a reward-based approach

Although the majority of current smokers indicate they would like to quit, only about half of smokers make a quit attempt each year. Of those who attempt to quit, only about 5% are successful. Many effective products and programs are available to assist in smoking cessation; however those interested in quitting often do not make use of these resources. To increase use of cessation products in order to improve successful cessation rates, the Consumer Demand Roundtable has argued that smokers need to be viewed as consumers of cessation products rather than as patients needing treatment. With this consumer-based approach in mind, the current review examines how participant characteristics, perceptions, and behavior influence, and are influenced by, contingency management (CM) paradigms in various settings. Findings suggest that participant factors associated with success in these programs include demographic characteristics (eg, gender, marital status), self-efficacy, motivation to quit, and impulsivity. Overall, participants perceive incentives for successful cessation as motivating. However, such programs may involve greater withdrawal symptoms (eg, craving for cigarettes) initially, but these symptoms tend to decrease at a greater rate over time compared with nonincentive group participants. CM programs have also been shown to be successful across a number of settings (eg, communities, schools), including settings in which smokers are often considered difficult to treat (eg, substance abuse treatment centers). Overall, CM programs are perceived positively by participants and can increase rates of successful cessation. Furthermore, CM interventions have the flexibility to adapt to individual preferences and needs, leading to greater participation and likelihood of successful cessation. Thus, CM provides an important framework for addressing the need for consumer-focused smoking cessation interventions.

Systematic reviews on tobacco control from Cochrane and the Community Guide: different methods, similar findings

OBJECTIVES

To compare the methods and findings of systematic reviews (SRs) on common tobacco control interventions from two organizations: the Cochrane Collaboration ("Cochrane") and the US Task Force for Community Preventive Services ("the Guide").

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Literature review. We retrieved all reviews pertaining to tobacco control produced by the Cochrane and the Guide. We identified seven common topics and compared methods and findings of the retrieved reviews.

RESULTS

There was considerable variability in the designs of included studies and methods of data synthesis. On average, Cochrane identified more studies than did the Guide (Mean 43.7 vs. 19.0), with only limited overlap between sets of included studies. Most Cochrane reviews (71.4%) were synthesized narratively, whereas most Guide reviews (85.7%) were synthesized using a median of effect size. Despite these differences, findings of the reviews yielded substantial agreement.

CONCLUSION

Cochrane and the Guide conduct SRs on similar tobacco control-related topics differently. The SRs of the two organizations include overlapping, but nonidentical sets, of studies. Still, they usually reach similar conclusions. Identification of all pertinent original studies seems to be a weak point in the SR process. Policy makers should use reviews from both organizations in formulating tobacco control policy.

Smoking cessation readiness: are your patients ready to quit?

PURPOSE

To explore the assessment of patient readiness to receive smoking cessation interventions using the transtheoretical model (TTM) and the five stages of change; and to give the primary care provider an evidence-based toolkit to assist in evaluating for readiness and supporting the smoking cessation process.

DATA SOURCES

Evidence-based literature, theoretical framework, and peer-reviewed articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing the TTM along with proper training and education of the provider and patient increases the probability that smoking cessation will occur. Combinations of pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical interventions are the most effective in smoking cessation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Providers can be prepared at every patient visit to address the smoking cessation needs of all patients. The toolkit provided in this article will help facilitate evaluation of readiness and support of effective, long-term smoking cessation and reduce eventual smoking-related morbidities.

P4P4P: an agenda for research on pay-for-performance for patients

Unhealthy behavior is a major cause of poor health outcomes and high health care costs. In this paper we describe an agenda for research to guide broader use of patient-targeted financial incentives, either in conjunction with provider-targeted financial incentives (pay-for-performance, or P4P) or in clinical contexts where provider-targeted approaches are unlikely to be effective. We discuss evidence of proven effectiveness and limitations of the existing evidence, reasons for underuse of these approaches, and options for achieving wider use. Patient-targeted incentives have great potential, and systematic testing will help determine how they can best be used to improve population health.

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.

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for preventing tobacco smoking in public places

BACKGROUND

Environmental tobacco smoke is a health hazard. Reducing exposure to tobacco smoke in public places is a widespread public health goal. There is, however, considerable variation in the extent to which this goal has been achieved in different settings and societies. There is therefore a need to identify effective strategies for reducing tobacco consumption in public places.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce tobacco consumption in public places.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Tobacco Addiction Review Group trials register, MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2006. We handsearched a key journal and abstracts from international conferences on tobacco. We checked the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized and controlled trials, controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series. The main outcome of interest was levels and measures of compliance with bans and restrictions. We considered strategies aimed at populations, including education campaigns, written material, non-smoking and warning signs, and comprehensive strategies. We also considered strategies aimed at individual smokers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of each study was abstracted by one reviewer and checked by two others. Studies were combined using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty of 25 studies reporting information about interventions to reduce smoking in public places met all the inclusion criteria. Three were controlled before-and-after studies and 17 were uncontrolled before-and-after studies. The most effective strategies used comprehensive, multi-component approaches to implement policies banning smoking within institutions. Less comprehensive strategies, such as posted warnings and educational material, had a moderate effect. Five studies showed that prompting individual smokers had an immediate effect, but such strategies are unlikely to be acceptable as a public health intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Carefully planned and resourced, multi-component strategies effectively reduced smoking within public places. Less comprehensive strategies were less effective. Most studies were done in the USA and, despite increasing evidence from Europe, there is a need to identify ways in which these strategies can be adopted and used in countries with different attitudes to tobacco use. Future studies should also consider the use of more rigorous experimental designs.

Contracts between patients and healthcare practitioners for improving patients' adherence to treatment, prevention and health promotion activities

BACKGROUND

Contracts are a verbal or written agreement that a patient makes with themselves, with healthcare practitioners, or with carers, where participants commit to a set of behaviours related to the care of a patient. Contracts aim to improve the patients' adherence to treatment or health promotion programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of contracts between patients and healthcare practitioners on patients' adherence to treatment, prevention and health promotion activities, the stated health or behaviour aims in the contract, patient satisfaction or other relevant outcomes, including health practitioner behaviour and views, health status, reported harms, costs, or denial of treatment as a result of the contract.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's Specialised Register (in May 2004); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library 2004, issue 1); MEDLINE 1966 to May 2004); EMBASE (1980 to May 2004); PsycINFO (1966 to May 2004); CINAHL (1982 to May 2004); Dissertation Abstracts. A: Humanities and Social Sciences (1966 to May 2004); Sociological Abstracts (1963 to May 2004); UK National Research Register (2000 to May 2004); and C2-SPECTR, Campbell Collaboration (1950 to May 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of contracts between healthcare practitioners and patients or their carers on patient adherence, applied to diagnostic procedures, therapeutic regimens or any health promotion or illness prevention initiative for patients. Contracts had to specify at least one activity to be observed and a commitment of adherence to it. We included trials comparing contracts with routine care or any other intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Selection and quality assessment of trials were conducted independently by two review authors; single data extraction was checked by a statistician. We present the data as a narrative summary, given the wide range of interventions, participants, settings and outcomes, grouped by the health problem being addressed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included thirty trials, all conducted in high income countries, involving 4691 participants. Median sample size per group was 21. We examined the quality of each trial against eight standard criteria, and all trials were inadequate in relation to three or more of these standards. Trials evaluated contracts in addiction (10 trials), hypertension (4 trials), weight control (3 trials) and a variety of other areas (13 trials). Sixteen trials reported at least one outcome that showed statistically significant differences favouring the contracts group, five trials reported at least one outcome that showed differences favouring the control group and 26 trials reported at least one outcome without differences between groups. Effects on adherence were not detected when measured over longer periods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence that contracts can potentially contribute to improving adherence, but there is insufficient evidence from large, good quality studies to routinely recommend contracts for improving adherence to treatment or preventive health regimens.

Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions

BACKGROUND

Provision of evidence on costs alongside evidence on the effects of interventions can enhance the relevance of systematic reviews to decision-making. However, patterns of use of economics methods alongside systematic review remain unclear. Reviews of evidence on the effects of interventions are published by both the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. Although it is not a requirement that Cochrane or Campbell Reviews should consider economic aspects of interventions, many do. This study aims to explore and describe approaches to incorporating economics methods in a selection of Cochrane systematic reviews in the area of health promotion and public health, to help inform development of methodological guidance on economics for reviewers.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched using a search strategy for potential economic evaluation studies. We included current Cochrane reviews and review protocols retrieved using the search that are also identified as relevant to health promotion or public health topics. A reviewer extracted data which describe the economics components of included reviews. Extracted data were summarised in tables and analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Twenty-one completed Cochrane reviews and seven review protocols met inclusion criteria. None incorporate formal economic evaluation methods. Ten completed reviews explicitly aim to incorporate economics studies and data. There is a lack of transparent reporting of methods underpinning the incorporation of economics studies and data. Some reviews are likely to exclude useful economics studies and data due to a failure to incorporate search strategies tailored to the retrieval of such data or use of key specialist databases, and application of inclusion criteria designed for effectiveness studies.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for consistency and transparency in the reporting and conduct of the economics components of Cochrane reviews, as well as regular dialogue between Cochrane reviewers and economists to develop increased capacity for economic analyses alongside such reviews. Use of applicable economics methods in Cochrane reviews can help provide the international context within which economics data can be interpreted and assessed as a preliminary to full economic evaluation.

Some doubts about one of the largest smoking prevention programmes in Europe, the smokefree class competition

With over 600,000 participants in 16 countries, the smokefree class competition is one of the largest smoking prevention programmes in Europe. Participating classes that maintain a smoking prevalence usually below 10% are eligible for a contest and the winner is rewarded with money. There is however no convincing evidence that this competition has any effect on smoking prevalence beyond the short term, and this approach raises serious ethical issues. In particular, the central principle of this competition is to apply negative peer pressure upon teenage smokers. However, promoters of this competition have neglected to report the possible adverse consequences of using negative peer pressure upon smokers. This is a concern, because teenage smokers are more vulnerable than non-smokers, and they are at higher risk of suffering from psychological problems and school failure.

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.

Quit and Win contests for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Quit and Win contests were developed in the 1980s by the Minnesota Heart Health Program, and have been widely used since then as a population-based smoking cessation intervention at local, national and international level. Since 1994 an international contest has been held every two years in as many as 80 countries (2002).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether quit and win contests can deliver higher long-term quit rates than baseline community quit rates. To assess the impact of such programmes, we considered both the quit rates achieved by participants, and the population impact, which takes into account the proportion of the target population entering the contest.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, with additional searches of MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2004), EMBASE (180 to 2004/8), CINAHL (1982 to 2004/8) and PsycINFO (1872 to 2004/6). Search terms included competition*, quit and win, quit to win, contest*, prize*.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials, allocating individuals 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. We decided against performing a meta-analysis, because of the heterogeneity of the included studies, and the small number of scientifically valid studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies met our inclusion criteria. Three demonstrated significantly higher quit rates (8% to 20%) for the quit and win group than for the control group at the 12-month assessment. However, the population impact measure, where available, suggests that the effect of contests on community prevalence of smoking is small, with fewer than one in 500 smokers quitting because of the contest. Levels of deception, where they could be quantified, were high. Although surveys suggest that international quit and win contests may be effective, especially in developing countries, the lack of controlled studies precludes any firm conclusions from this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Quit and win contests at local and regional level appear to deliver quit rates above baseline community rates, although the population impact of the contests seems to be relatively low. Contests may be subject to levels of deception which could compromise the validity of the intervention. International contests may prove to be an effective mechanism, particularly in developing countries, but a lack of well-designed comparative studies precludes any firm conclusions.