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

Financial incentives to stop smoking: Potential financial consequences of different reward schedules

INTRODUCTION

Financial incentives to stop smoking (FISS) programs have been implemented internationally to encourage people who smoke to quit smoking. However, such programs require that the financial reward structure and its resulting effects on smoking quit rates are considered. We analyzed a number of scenarios for FISS reward schedules for current smoking individuals in Ireland, with a view to identify the potential implications in terms of financial consequences and expected effects.

METHODS

Using national QuitManager services data 2021-2023, we defined smoking quit rates for smokers currently using the national Health Services Executive stop smoking services in Ireland. Smoking quit rates at 4, 12 and 52 weeks were defined, and additionally defined by sex, age and education level. Using scenarios assuming different FISS reward sizes, structures and targeted population sub-groups, we estimated the number of additional quitters, budget impact, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

A FISS program, if implemented for a cohort of 3500 smokers can result in a budget impact ranging €250000 - €870000. The cost-effectiveness trade-off between different payment schedules and the expected effect size suggested that FISS are cost-effective even at a moderate effect size. A FISS program implemented to approximately 20000 smokers nationally would cost between €2.0 million and €4.8 million, subject to the chosen reward schedule. Across social groups, FISS is more cost-effective for females, individuals in the youngest age group, and individuals with a medium level of education.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis highlights the importance of considering different FISS schedules and potential quit effects, when designing such programs. We highlight that FISS programs should be targeted at certain social groups to achieve highest long-term smoking cessation rates. We also identified important challenges that decision-makers face when designing the reward structure of FISS programs. The acceptability or otherwise of the FISS structures may differ among stakeholders and should be explored.

Contingency management for smoking cessation for individuals with overweight or obesity: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Interventions for quitting smoking and weight control among individuals with excess weight are scarce. Our study evaluated the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) plus contingency management (CM) in this population, and examined whether CM for smoking cessation improved CBT treatment outcomes at end of treatment (EOT) and at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups (FU).

METHODS

In an 8-week randomized clinical trial, 120 adults who smoke with overweight or obesity (54.16% females; MBMI = 31.75 ± 4.31) were randomly assigned to CBT for both quitting smoking and weight control (n = 60) or the same treatment plus CM for smoking cessation (n = 60). Outcome variables were compared (i.e., treatment completion, smoking abstinence, weight change and secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

At EOT, the CBT + CM group achieved 78.33% 7-day point-prevalence abstinence rates compared to 61.67% in the CBT group (p = .073), and rates declined over time (12-month FU: 18% vs 12%). Participants who attained abstinence weighed more compared to baseline at EOT (Mkg = 1.07; SD = 1.88) and over time (12-month FU: Mkg = 4.19; SD = 4.31). No differences were found between the two groups in outcome variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Both interventions were effective in promoting abstinence and reducing tobacco use over time. Combining CBT with CM for smoking cessation did not improve treatment outcomes in individuals with overweight or obesity compared to CBT only. Future studies should evaluate whether implementing CM for weight maintenance helps control post-cessation weight gain in this population.

Does offering small financial incentives to smokers at the time of being wait-listed for surgery increase smoking cessation by the day of surgery? A randomised feasibility trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess whether offering small financial incentives to smokers on elective surgery wait-lists is feasible and increases quitting before surgery.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial, prospective, double-blinded.

SETTING

Single-centre, Australian metropolitan public hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

620 adult smokers (≥10 cigarettes per day) were randomised on being wait-listed for elective surgery and 404 underwent operations (28 January 2021-31 July 2022) at the hospital (65.2%) by trial's end.

INTERVENTION

Intervention participants were offered at wait-listing an $A70 supermarket voucher for verified abstinence on the day of surgery, provided they registered an intention to quit before surgery. Registrants intending to quit were also referred to Quitline. Neither intervention was offered to control participants (usual care). Smokers wait-listed from 17 May 2021 were offered an increased incentive of $A140.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome, quitting at least 24 hours before surgery, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide testing. Feasibility outcomes were the proportion taking up offers, ease of patient contact and disputes about quit status.

RESULTS

Of 620 randomised participants (control 312, intervention 308), 404 had surgery at the hospital during the trial (control 214, intervention 190), which was lower than expected (for COVID-19 reasons). Offering $A70 resulted in 21.9% registering to quit, increasing to 32.6% with $A140. Telephone calls were the most effective means to gain registrations. The proportion of intervention group patients verified quit at least 24 hours before surgery was similar to controls (9.5% vs 8.9%, OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.2). Quitline contact was higher in the intervention group (13.2% vs 2.3%, OR 6.3, 95% CI 2.3 to 21.6). Disputes over test results did not occur, but 17.4% of intervention participants claiming quit failed verification.

CONCLUSION

A single offer of financial rewards for perioperative cessation was feasible, without achieving clinically important quit differences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000130965.

Tobacco treatment incorporating contingency management, nicotine replacement therapy, and behavioral counseling for pregnant women who use substances: a feasibility trial

Introduction

Most pregnant women with substance use problems smoke, and few will quit during their pregnancy. Tobacco treatment is often overlooked, with the focus usually placed on other substance use. Additionally, few targeted effective treatments for this group exist. To address this, the feasibility of an intensive tobacco treatment incorporating contingency management (CM) that featured non-face-to-face delivery was examined.

Methods

A single-arm pre-post design feasibility trial was conducted in three antenatal services that support women who use substances in metropolitan Australia. Participants were over the age of 15, had <33-week gestation, and smoked tobacco daily. They received financial incentives for daily carbon monoxide-verified smoking abstinence or reduction through an internet-based CM programme, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) posted to women and partners or household members who smoked and telephone-delivered behavioral counseling from study enrolment to birth.

Results

Of the 101 referrals, 46 women (46%) consented. The mean (SD) age was 31(±6) years, and the gestation period was 22(±6) weeks. Nineteen (41%) of those enrolled were retained for 12-week postpartum. Of 46 women, 32 (70%) utilized CM; 32 (70%) used NRT for ≥2 weeks; 23 (50%) attended ≥1 counseling session; and 15 (22%) received NRT for partners/household members. Fifteen (33%) were verified abstinent from tobacco at delivery after a median (IQR) period of abstinence of 65(36-128) days. All non-smokers at birth utilized NRT and financial incentives, and 9/15 (60%) utilized counseling. Four (9%) were abstinent at 12-week postpartum. Median cigarettes smoked/day reduced from baseline to delivery (10(6-20) to 1(0-6) p =< 0.001). Women who quit smoking had more education (72% vs. 33% p =< 0.02), completed more CO samples (median (IQR) 101(59-157) vs. 2(0-20) p =< 0.001), and received more incentives (median (IQR) $909($225-$1980) vs. $34($3-$64) p =< 0.001). Intervention acceptability was rated favorably by participants (9 items rated 0-10 with scores >5 considered favorable).

Discussion

This study demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of a consumer-informed, non-face-to-face intensive tobacco treatment, highlighting the potential of remotely delivered technology-based CM to reduce the health impact of tobacco smoking in high-priority populations. The intervention demonstrates scale-up potential. Future studies should extend treatment into the postpartum period, utilizing new technologies to enhance CM delivery and improve counseling provision and partner support.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=374196, ACTRN1261800056224.

Financial incentives for quitting smoking in pregnancy: Are they cost-effective?

AIMS

To evaluate whether adding financial incentives to usual care is cost-effective in encouraging pregnant women to quit tobacco smoking, compared with usual care alone.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a health-care provider's perspective, embedded in the Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT III). Long-term analyses were conducted from the same perspective, using an existing Markov model over a life-time horizon.

SETTING

Seven maternity smoking cessation sites in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

In the short-term analysis, CPIT III participants were assessed: women 16 years or older, self-reporting as smokers, fewer than 24 weeks pregnant and English-speaking (n = 944). The same population was used for the life-time analysis, plus their infants.

MEASUREMENTS

Costs included financial incentive vouchers and postage, cessation support and nicotine replacement therapy and neonatal stays. The outcome measure was a biochemically verified quit rate for the CEA and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for CUA. Costs are presented in 2020 GBP sterling (£). Data for the life-time analysis came from the trial and were combined with data from published literature embedded in the model, reporting incremental cost per quitter and QALY. A 3.5% discount rate was applied.

FINDINGS

The short-term incremental cost per quitter was £4400 and cost per QALY was £150 000. Results of sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. The long-term analysis combined costs and outcomes for mother and infants; results showed a cost saving of £37 [95% confidence interval (CI]) = £35-106] and increase in QALYs of 0.171 (95% CI = 0.124-0.229). These findings indicate that, over a life-time, financial incentives are cost-saving and improve health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United Kingdom, offering up to £400 financial incentives, in addition to usual care, to support pregnant women to stop smoking appears to be highly cost-effective over a life-time for mother and infants.

Lottery incentives for smoking cessation at the workplace: design and protocol of the smoke-free lottery - a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the leading behavioral risk factor for the loss of healthy life years. Many smokers want to quit, but have trouble doing so. Financial incentives in workplace settings have shown promising results in supporting smokers and their design influences their impact. Lotteries that leverage behavioral economic insights might improve the effectiveness of workplace cessation support.

METHODS AND DESIGN

We examine in a cluster randomized trial if a workplace cessation group training paired with lottery deadlines will increase continuous abstinence rates over and above the cessation training alone. Organizations are randomized to either the control arm or lottery arm. The lotteries capitalize regret aversion by always informing winners at the deadline, but withholding prizes if they smoked. In the lottery-arm, winners are drawn out of all participants within a training group, regardless of their smoking status. In weeks 1-13 there are weekly lotteries. Winners are informed about their prize (€50), but can only claim it if they did not smoke that week, validated biochemically. After 26 weeks, there is a long-term lottery where the winners are informed about their prize (vacation voucher worth €400), but can only claim it if they were abstinent between weeks 13 and 26. The primary outcome is continuous abstinence 52 weeks after the quit date.

DISCUSSION

There is a quest for incentives to support smoking cessation that are considered fair, affordable and effective across different socioeconomic groups. Previous use of behavioral economics in the design of lotteries have shown promising results in changing health behavior. This cluster randomized trial aims to demonstrate if these lotteries are also effective for supporting smoking cessation. Therefore the study design and protocol are described in detail in this paper. Findings might contribute to the application and development of effective cessation support at the workplace.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NL8463 . Date of registration: 17-03-2020.

[Financial incentives to achieve health-related behavioral goals: State of play and unresolved questions]

Programs providing monetary rewards to individuals who achieve a health-related goal (quitting smoking, losing weight, etc.) aim at promoting healthy behaviors. While these programs seem to achieve their objective in the short run, their ability to provoke lasting changes remains to be demonstrated. The identification of granting mechanisms likely to maximize the incentive effect of these rewards should be based on knowledge about individual attitudes evidenced by behavioral economics. As the latter has shown that preferences toward risk vary from one individual to another, these incentive mechanisms should be tailor-made according to individual preferences.

Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes: A pilot randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Determine the cost-effectiveness of three financial incentive structures in obtaining a 1% within group drop in HbA1c among adults with diabetes.

METHODS

60 African Americans with type 2 diabetes were randomized to one of three financial incentive structures and followed for 3-months. Group 1 (low frequency) received a single incentive for absolute HbA1c reduction, Group 2 (moderate frequency) received a two-part incentive for home testing of glucose and absolute HbA1c reduction and Group 3 (high frequency) received a multiple component incentive for home testing, attendance of weekly telephone education classes and absolute HbA1c reduction. The primary clinical outcome was HbA1c reduction within each arm at 3-months. Cost for each arm was calculated based on the cost of the intervention, cost of health care visits during the 3-month time frame, and cost of workdays missed from illness. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated based on achieving a 1% within group drop in HbA1c and were bootstrapped with 1,000 replications.

RESULTS

The ICER to decrease HbA1c by 1% was $1,100 for all three arms, however, bootstrapped standard errors differed with Group 1 having twice the variation around the ICER coefficient as Groups 2 and 3. ICERs were statistically significant for Groups 2 and 3 (p<0.001) indicating they are cost effective interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Given ICERs of prior diabetes interventions range from $1,000-$4,000, a cost of $1,100 per 1% within group decrease in HbA1c is a promising intervention. Multi-component incentive structures seem to have the least variation in cost-effectiveness.