Perceptions of Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation: A Survey of Smokers in a Country With an Endgame Goal

Public attitudes to implementing financial incentives in stopsmoking services in Ireland

INTRODUCTION

Financial incentives improve stop-smoking service outcomes. Views on acceptability can influence implementation success. To inform implementation planning in Ireland, public attitudes on financial incentives to stop smoking were measured.

METHODS

A cross-sectional telephone survey was administered to 1000 people in Ireland aged ≥15 years in 2022, sampled through random digit dialing. The questionnaire included items on support for financial incentives under different conditions. Prevalence of support was calculated with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and multiple logistic regression identified associated factors using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Almost half (47.0%, 95% CI: 43.9-50.1) of the participants supported at least one type of financial incentive to stop smoking, with support more prevalent for shopping vouchers (43.3%, 95% CI: 40.3-46.5) than cash payments (32.1%, 95% CI: 29.2-35.0). Support was similar for universal and income-restricted schemes. Of those who supported financial incentives, the majority (60.6%) believed the maximum amount given on proof of stopping smoking should be under €250 (median=100, range: 1-7000). Compared to their counterparts, those of lower education level (AOR=1.49; 95% CI: 1.10-2.03, p=0.010) and tobacco/e-cigarette users (AOR=1.43; 95% CI: 1.02-2.03, p=0.041) were significantly more likely to support either financial incentive type, as were younger people.

CONCLUSIONS

While views on financial incentives to stop smoking in Ireland were mixed, the intervention is more acceptable in groups experiencing the heaviest burden of smoking-related harm and most capacity to benefit. Engagement and communication must be integral to planning for successful implementation to improve stop-smoking service outcomes.

Experiences of conditional and unconditional cash transfers intended for improving health outcomes and health service use: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

It is well known that poverty is associated with ill health and that ill health can result in direct and indirect costs that can perpetuate poverty. Social protection, which includes policies and programmes intended to prevent and reduce poverty in times of ill health, could be one way to break this vicious cycle. Social protection, particularly cash transfers, also has the potential to promote healthier behaviours, including healthcare seeking. Although social protection, particularly conditional and unconditional cash transfers, has been widely studied, it is not well known how recipients experience social protection interventions, and what unintended effects such interventions can cause.   OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to explore how conditional and unconditional cash transfer social protection interventions with a health outcome are experienced and perceived by their recipients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Social Services Abstracts, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, AnthroSource and EconLit from the start of the database to 5 June 2020. We combined this with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature and contact with authors to identify additional studies. We reran all strategies in July 2022, and the new studies are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included primary studies, using qualitative methods or mixed-methods studies with qualitative research reporting on recipients' experiences of cash transfer interventions where health outcomes were evaluated. Recipients could be adult patients of healthcare services, the general adult population as recipients of cash targeted at themselves or directed at children. Studies could be evaluated on any mental or physical health condition or cash transfer mechanism. Studies could come from any country and be in any language. Two authors independently selected studies.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a multi-step purposive sampling framework for selecting studies, starting with geographical representation, followed by health condition, and richness of data. Key data were extracted by the authors into Excel. Methodological limitations were assessed independently using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria by two authors. Data were synthesised using meta-ethnography, and confidence in findings was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 127 studies in the review and sampled 41 of these studies for our analysis. Thirty-two further studies were found after the updated search on 5 July 2022 and are awaiting classification. The sampled studies were from 24 different countries: 17 studies were from the African region, seven were from the region of the Americas, seven were from the European region, six were from the South-East Asian region, three from the Western Pacific region and one study was multiregional, covering both the African and the Eastern Mediterranean regions. These studies primarily explored the views and experiences of cash transfer recipients with different health conditions, such as infectious diseases, disabilities and long-term illnesses, sexual and reproductive health, and maternal and child health. Our GRADE-CERQual assessment indicated we had mainly moderate- and high-confidence findings. We found that recipients perceived the cash transfers as necessary and helpful for immediate needs and, in some cases, helpful for longer-term benefits. However, across conditional and unconditional programmes, recipients often felt that the amount given was too little in relation to their total needs. They also felt that the cash alone was not enough to change their behaviour and, to change behaviour, additional types of support would be required. The cash transfer was reported to have important effects on empowerment, autonomy and agency, but also in some settings, recipients experienced pressure from family or programme staff on cash usage. The cash transfer was reported to improve social cohesion and reduce intrahousehold tension. However, in settings where some received the cash and others did not, the lack of an equal approach caused tension, suspicion and conflict. Recipients also reported stigma in terms of cash transfer programme assessment processes and eligibility, as well as inappropriate eligibility processes. Across settings, recipients experienced barriers in accessing the cash transfer programme, and some refused or were hesitant to receive the cash. Some recipients found cash transfer programmes more acceptable when they agreed with the programme's goals and processes.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the impact of the sociocultural context on the functioning and interaction between the individual, family and cash transfer programmes. Even where the goals of a cash transfer programme are explicitly health-related, the outcomes may be far broader than health alone and may include, for example, reduced stigma, empowerment and increased agency of the individual. When measuring programme outcomes, therefore, these broader impacts could be considered for understanding the health and well-being benefits of cash transfers.

Female Patient Perceptions on Financial Incentives to Promote Follow-Up After Bariatric Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Financial incentives to promote recommended behaviors have been applied in many healthcare settings, but to our knowledge, have never been tested as a strategy to improve patient follow-up after bariatric surgery. Given that females make up majority of bariatric surgery patients, our goal was to explore female patient perceptions on the effects of a financial incentive program designed to increase follow-up after bariatric surgery.

METHODS

This was an exploratory qualitative study of patient participants in a pilot program investigating financial incentives. We performed qualitative interviews with female patients to include personal experiences with bariatric surgery, progress toward goals, and concerns related to post-surgical behaviors. The data was analyzed iteratively through inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one female patients who had undergone bariatric surgery and enrolled in the financial incentive program participated in this study. Participants had generally positive impressions of the financial incentive program. Participants described the utility of the program in helping to pay for expenses associated with bariatric surgery; feeling that participation was their way of demonstrating that they were compliant with post-surgical recommendations; and that it provided additional motivation. All patients stated that even without the financial incentive they would have continued to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

While financial incentives can provide additional motivation for patients following bariatric surgery, they are not the primary reason that patients choose to follow-up. Understanding the motivation of patients who choose to follow-up (or not) may better inform investigations intended to improve follow-up rates after bariatric surgery.

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

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

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.

Effect of a workplace-based group training programme combined with financial incentives on smoking cessation: a cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives are potentially useful tools to aid smoking cessation, but robust evidence to support their efficacy, particularly in combination with other interventions (eg, group counselling), has not been reported. We aimed to investigate whether financial incentives combined with a smoking cessation group training programme (compared with a training programme with no incentives) organised at the workplace would increase 12-month abstinence rates in tobacco-smoking employees with different education and income levels.

METHODS

This cluster-randomised controlled trial was done in the Netherlands with companies that offer a smoking cessation group training programme to all of their smoking employees. Eligible participants were tobacco-smoking employees and spouses of employees who were at least 18 years of age. Participants in the control group received a weekly 90-min session of smoking cessation group training for 7 weeks at the workplace; in addition to the group training, participants in the intervention group received vouchers for being abstinent (€50 at the end of the training programme, €50 3 months after completion of the programme, €50 after 6 months, and €200 after 12 months). Companies were randomly assigned by an independent research assistant to the intervention group or the control group with a digital randomisation programme, using a biased urn method. The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-validated continuous abstinence at 12 months. All randomised participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses, with the exception of unavoidable loss (participants who had died or moved to an untraceable address (according to the Russell Standard), and in the sensitivity analyses, except the complete case analysis, which included only participants for whom all variables included in the model were not missing. This study is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, number NTR5657.

FINDINGS

Between March 1, 2016, and March 1, 2017, 61 companies with 604 participating smokers were enrolled. 31 companies (319 smokers) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 30 companies (285 smokers) to the control group. 12 months after finishing the smoking cessation programme, the proportion of individuals abstaining from smoking in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (131 [41%] of 319 vs 75 [26%] of 284; adjusted odds ratio 1·93, 95% CI 1·31-2·85, p=0·0009; adjusted for education level, income level, and Fagerström score).

INTERPRETATION

Financial incentives in addition to a smoking cessation group training programme can significantly increase long-term smoking abstinence. The results of the current study could motivate employers to facilitate a workplace smoking cessation programme with financial incentives to help employees to quit smoking.

FUNDING

Dutch Cancer Society.

Exploring the barriers and incentive architecture for modifying smoke exposures among asthmatics

BACKGROUND

The socio-structural barriers for reducing secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) among children with asthma may be insurmountable for low-income caregivers. Health promoting financial incentives (HPFIs) are increasingly being used in the adult population to motivate and sustain tobacco-reduction behaviors. We assessed barriers to SHSe reduction and means to overcome them through the design of an HPFI-based, caregiver-targeted SHSe reduction study.

METHODS

Using a mixed-methods design, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among low-income primary caregivers of children with asthma residing in Baltimore City. Quantitative data using an online survey were used to augment interview findings.

RESULTS

Home smoking restrictions were a frequently referenced strategy for decreasing SHSe, but interviewees (n = 22) described the complex social pressures that undermine reduction efforts. Caregivers redirected conversations from broadly implemented smoking bans towards targeted reduction strategies among mothers and members of their social network who are active smokers. Participants converged on the notion that sustainable SHSe reduction strategies are realizable only for mothers who are active smokers, possess high self-efficacy and social structures that promote cessation. Survey data (n = 56) clarified the multiple contexts that underlie pediatric SHSe and preferred HPFI architecture that included fixed, recurrent payments contingent on reduced nicotine biomarkers and completion of basic asthma education classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the combined analyses, we envision testing a HPFI-based study design whose optimal target population included low-income caregivers and members of their social network where incentives are tied to pediatric biomarkers and asthma education-an integrated approach that has not yet been used in pediatric tobacco studies.