Cessation and relapse in a year-long workplace quit-smoking contest

Behavioral Economics and Tobacco Control: Current Practices and Future Opportunities

Despite considerable progress, smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. To address the considerable health and economic burden of tobacco use, the development of improved tobacco control and treatment interventions is critical. By combining elements of economics and psychology, behavioral economics provides a framework for novel solutions to treat smokers who have failed to quit with traditional smoking cessation interventions. The full range of behavioral economic principles, however, have not been widely utilized in the realm of tobacco control and treatment. Given the need for improved tobacco control and treatment, the limited use of other behavioral economic principles represents a substantial missed opportunity. For this reason, we sought to describe the principles of behavioral economics as they relate to tobacco control, highlight potential gaps in the behavioral economics tobacco research literature, and provide examples of potential interventions that use each principle.

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.

Work environment and smoking cessation over a five-year period

Aims: The authors set out to estimate effects of occupational factors on smoking cessation among Danish employees. Methods: Data from 3,606 observations of smokers gathered from the Danish National Work Environment Cohort Study in 1990, 1995, and 2000 were analysed by logistic regression. The model comprised background variables, smoking variables, and measures of psychosocial and other aspects of the work environment. Results: Statistically significant odds ratios (OR) for cessation were found for medium versus no exposure to noise (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 - 0.93), for high versus low physical workload (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.47 - 0.73), for high versus low psychological demands (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.12 - 1.80), and for medium versus low levels of responsibility at work (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.65). Conclusion: The probability of smoking cessation differs between people with different exposures to certain work environmental factors.

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.

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.

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.

Reviewing the needs of unemployed youth in smoking intervention programmes

In Australia, the impact of unemployment on adolescent smoking behaviour continues to present a major public health problem. Traditional prevention programmes in both primary and secondary schools appear to be achieving a delay in the onset of smoking. However, smoking rates of young people who are unemployed are unacceptably higher than those of in-school youth. This paper provides a review of the published literature, showing that there has been little effort to address smoking patterns or experiences of quitting for this target group. While the provision of employment opportunities or skill training for this group is important, these strategies will not eliminate the problem of smoking. Steps must be taken to encourage research into the development of tailored programmes for unemployed youth who smoke. These programmes must be carefully considered and evaluated and meet the needs of this diverse group of young people.

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.

A systematic review of the impact of work environment on smoking cessation, relapse and amount smoked

BACKGROUND

Smoking is an important issue for the majority of the world's working population. It is important to explore in which ways the workplace might contribute to changes in smoking status and smoking behavior. The present article provides a systematic review and quality assessment of studies that have addressed the impact of factors in the work environment on smoking behavior.

METHODS

An evaluation of the methodological quality of 22 prospective studies was based on 14 explicit criteria, which included features of study design, statistical analysis, sampling issues and measurement. The level of scientific evidence was evaluated for each study.

RESULTS

There was strong evidence for an effect of the work environment on the amount smoked, but insufficient or mixed evidence regarding cessation and relapse. Summarizing the results, high job demands were associated with higher amount smoked and with increased likelihood of cessation. Resources at work and social support were positively associated with cessation and negatively associated with relapse and the amount smoked.

CONCLUSIONS

The results supported the overall hypothesis that the work environment influences aspects of smoking behavior. Recommendations are made for more intervention studies where changes in work environment are carried out in combination with health promotion interventions.

Work factors as predictors of smoking relapse in nurses’ aides

OBJECTIVES

The prevalence of tobacco smoking in nurses' aides (assistant nurses) is high. Many smokers make attempts to stop smoking, but a large portion of these relapse after some period of time. The objective of this study was to identify work factors that predict smoking relapse in nurses' aides.

METHODS

Of 1,373 Norwegian nurses' aides--who were former smokers, not current smokers, and not on leave when they completed a questionnaire in 1999--1,203 (87.6%) filled in a second questionnaire 15 months later. A wide spectrum of physical, psychological, social, and organisational work factors were assessed by validated questionnaires at baseline. Respondents who reported smoking at least one cigarette per day at the follow-up were considered having resumed daily smoking (relapse).

RESULTS

Social climate in the work unit (index with 3 items: supportive, trustful, relaxed) and frequency of exposure to threats and violence were the only work factors that were associated with the occurrence of relapse after adjustments for background factors. In a logistic regression analysis, frequent exposure to threats and violence at work (odds ratio (OR)=2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-4.29), and the lowest quintile of the social climate index (OR=2.12; CI: 1.03-4.36) were associated with increased risk of smoking relapse, after adjustments for age, gender, marital status, and having preschool children.

CONCLUSIONS

A poor social climate in the work unit and frequent exposure to threats and violence at work may be predictors of smoking relapse in nurses' aides. It is essential that leaders in the health services put more emphasis on creating a supportive, relaxed, and trustful social climate in the work unit. It is also important that protective measures against violent patients are implemented, and that occupational health officers offer victims of violence appropriate support or therapy.

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.

[Employees attitudes to workplace health promotion programs for cancer prevention]

OBJECTIVE

[corrected] We describe a method for feasibility assessment of workplace health promotion (WHP) programs as a necessary prerequisite of any WHP program.

METHODS

A total of 167 employees from five workplace communities participated in the study. A questionnaire on the basic components of feasibility (risk factors, attitudes to workplace health promotion interventions, and social-occupational context) was administered.

RESULTS

Risk behaviours were common among the employees interviewed. Health promotion in the workplace was favorably viewed by 79% of subjects but reported participation would be lower. Interventions on diet and physical activity received the highest acceptance. Participation would be greatest among local administration employees.

CONCLUSIONS

The method demonstrated its utility in obtaining useful data for designing workplace health promotion interventions.

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.

Feasibility of school-based smoking cessation programs

This study obtained input from Australian student smokers approximately 15 years old, which may be useful in designing school-based smoking cessation programs. The sample was analyzed by previous quitting experience and intentions to quit. The order of preference for assistance options and incentives for quitting was similar across all groups; however, those who previously attempted to quit (previous quitters) and those who intended to quit (intenders) in the future were significantly more likely than non-quitters and non-intenders to find assistance options for quitting acceptable. The potential for saving money emerged as an important variable in convincing all groups of smokers not to smoke, and using personal willpower and cutting down slowly were identified as important in actual attempts to quit. The need for programs to be free and for friends to be supportive also was evident across all groups.

Who is a successful quitter? One-year follow-up of a National Tobacco Quit and Win Contest in Sweden

The first nation-wide Quit and Win Contest in Sweden was held in 1988 with 12,840 participants. This corresponds to a participant rate of 6.4 per 1,000 daily tobacco users in Sweden. In order to follow up the long-term effects of cessation and to analyse the determinants for successful cessation, a panel (n = 946) of randomized participants were followed-up at 6 and 12 months with a mailed questionnaire. This gave a complete set of data for 557 (panel) respondents. Available baseline data from the participants' entry forms included sex, age, occupation, specific tobacco habits, quitting attempts during the previous year, and place of residence. At the 12-month follow-up 21% had been tobacco-free for the whole year. In addition 9% of the participants relapsed into tobacco-use, then quit again and were tobacco-free at the 12-month follow-up. The success rate for those participants (14%) who used smokeless tobacco (oral snuff) was similar to that of smokers. The logistic regression showed a significantly better prognosis for success among those without any earlier quitting attempts during the previous year (OR 2.35), if the subjects participated of their own volition rather than having been recruited by a non-tobacco user (OR 1.74), and if they were married/co-habiting (OR 1.92), the results were also significantly improved. The results also show that as a population-based method, Quit and Win produced many successful tobacco quitters, and one year after the contest one-fifth of the participants were still abstinent.

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

This study evaluated the impact of a year-long incentives-based worksite smoking-cessation program. Nineteen moderate-sized worksites, employing a total of approximately 1100 smokers, were randomized to Incentive or No Incentive conditions. All identified smokers in the worksite were considered as subjects, whether or not they participated in the intervention. Analyses were conducted at both the worksite and individual level, and using both self-reported and biochemically validated cessation as endpoints. The incentive program did not significantly improve cessation rates at either the 1-year or 2-year follow-up assessments. We conclude that more broadly focused interventions that also address worksite smoking policies, skills training, and cessation resources, or programs that target additional risk factors are needed to substantially enhance quit rates.