Janet L Thomas1, Xianghua Luo2,3, Jill Bengtson1, Qi Wang4, Winta Ghidei1, John Nyman5, Katherine Lust6, Lawrence An7, David W Wetter8, Leonard Epstein9, Jasjit S Ahluwalia10. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 2. School of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Boynton Health Service, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 7. Center for Health Communications Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 8. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA. 9. Pediatrics; Epidemiology and Environmental Health, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 10. Rutgers School of Public Health, New Jersey, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Quit & Win contests (in which smokers pledge to quit smoking for a defined period in exchange for the chance to win a prize) may be well-suited for college smokers. We tested the effectiveness of multiple versus single Quit & Win contests and that of added counseling versus no counseling in smoking cessation. DESIGN: A two-by-two, randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up. SETTING:Nineteen institutions in Minnesota, Texas, Ohio and Wisconsin. PARTICIPANTS: College student smokers (n = 1217) were randomized within site to four conditions: single (n = 306), multiple contests alone (n = 309), single contest plus counseling (n = 296) or multiple contests with counseling (n = 306). INTERVENTION: Participants in the standard contest condition (T1 and T2) were asked to abstain from all tobacco products for a 30-day period; those with confirmed abstinence were eligible for a lottery-based prize. Participants assigned to the multiple contest conditions (T3 and T4) participated in the 30-day contest and were enrolled automatically into two additional contest periods with an escalating prize structure. Participants randomized into the counseling conditions (T2 and T4) received up to six telephone-administered Motivation and Problem Solving (MAPS) counseling sessions over the 12-week treatment period. MEASURES: The primary outcome was biochemically verified 30-day point prevalence (PP) abstinence rate at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the same abstinence at end of treatment (4 months) and a proxy measure of 6-month verified continuous abstinence rate. Outcomes were based on all participants randomized. FINDINGS: We found no evidence of an interaction between number of contests and counseling. Abstinence rates for multiple (13.5%) and single (11.7%) contests were not significantly different at 6 months [odds ratio (OR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.84-1.66]. The addition of counseling did not improve 6-month abstinence significantly (13.7 versus 11.6%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.86-1.70). Multiple contests increased abstinence at 4 months (19.3 versus 10.3%, OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.50-2.91) and continuous abstinence at 6 months (7.8 versus 3.8%, OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.28-3.56). CONCLUSION: Multiple Quit & Win contests may increase smoking abstinence rates in college students more than single contests, but it is not clear whether adding counseling to these interventions produces any additional benefit.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Quit & Win contests (in which smokers pledge to quit smoking for a defined period in exchange for the chance to win a prize) may be well-suited for college smokers. We tested the effectiveness of multiple versus single Quit & Win contests and that of added counseling versus no counseling in smoking cessation. DESIGN: A two-by-two, randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up. SETTING: Nineteen institutions in Minnesota, Texas, Ohio and Wisconsin. PARTICIPANTS: College student smokers (n = 1217) were randomized within site to four conditions: single (n = 306), multiple contests alone (n = 309), single contest plus counseling (n = 296) or multiple contests with counseling (n = 306). INTERVENTION: Participants in the standard contest condition (T1 and T2) were asked to abstain from all tobacco products for a 30-day period; those with confirmed abstinence were eligible for a lottery-based prize. Participants assigned to the multiple contest conditions (T3 and T4) participated in the 30-day contest and were enrolled automatically into two additional contest periods with an escalating prize structure. Participants randomized into the counseling conditions (T2 and T4) received up to six telephone-administered Motivation and Problem Solving (MAPS) counseling sessions over the 12-week treatment period. MEASURES: The primary outcome was biochemically verified 30-day point prevalence (PP) abstinence rate at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the same abstinence at end of treatment (4 months) and a proxy measure of 6-month verified continuous abstinence rate. Outcomes were based on all participants randomized. FINDINGS: We found no evidence of an interaction between number of contests and counseling. Abstinence rates for multiple (13.5%) and single (11.7%) contests were not significantly different at 6 months [odds ratio (OR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.84-1.66]. The addition of counseling did not improve 6-month abstinence significantly (13.7 versus 11.6%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.86-1.70). Multiple contests increased abstinence at 4 months (19.3 versus 10.3%, OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.50-2.91) and continuous abstinence at 6 months (7.8 versus 3.8%, OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.28-3.56). CONCLUSION: Multiple Quit & Win contests may increase smoking abstinence rates in college students more than single contests, but it is not clear whether adding counseling to these interventions produces any additional benefit.
Authors: Carla J Berg; Katherine A Lust; Julia R Sanem; Matthias A Kirch; Maria Rudie; Edward Ehlinger; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Lawrence C An Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: David W Wetter; Carlos Mazas; Patricia Daza; Lynne Nguyen; Rachel T Fouladi; Yisheng Li; Ludmila Cofta-Woerpel Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Douglas E Jorenby; J Taylor Hays; Nancy A Rigotti; Salomon Azoulay; Eric J Watsky; Kathryn E Williams; Clare B Billing; Jason Gong; Karen R Reeves Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kari Jo Harris; Delwyn Catley; Glenn E Good; Nikole J Cronk; Solomon Harrar; Karen B Williams Journal: Prev Med Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: F Joseph McClernon; F Berry Hiott; Jim Liu; Alfred N Salley; Frederique M Behm; Jed E Rose Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2007-06-16 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; Danielle E McCarthy; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Su-Young Kim; Suzanne Colby; David Conti; Gary A Giovino; Dorothy Hatsukami; Andrew Hyland; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Raymond Niaura; Kenneth A Perkins; Benjamin A Toll Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Lorraine R Reitzel; Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Michael S Businelle; Darla E Kendzor; Tracy J Costello; Yisheng Li; Patricia Daza; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Mary M Velasquez; Paul M Cinciripini; Ludmila Cofta-Woerpel; David W Wetter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-02-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Tingting Zhao; Xianghua Luo; Haitao Chu; Chap T Le; Leonard H Epstein; Janet L Thomas Journal: J Exp Anal Behav Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.468
Authors: Jonah Popp; John A Nyman; Xianghua Luo; Jill Bengtson; Katherine Lust; Lawrence An; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Janet L Thomas Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2018-04-23
Authors: Shengwei Zhang; Haitao Chu; Warren K Bickel; Chap T Le; Tracy T Smith; Janet L Thomas; Eric C Donny; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Xianghua Luo Journal: Stat Med Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Julia C West; Elias M Klemperer; Amanda L Graham; Darren Mays; Robin J Mermelstein; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Christine Vinci; Cho Lam; Chelsey R Schlechter; Yusuke Shono; Jennifer I Vidrine; David W Wetter Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: David A Wohl; Andrew G Allmon; Donna Evon; Christopher Hurt; Sarah Ailleen Reifeis; Harsha Thirumurthy; Becky Straub; Angela Edwards; Katie R Mollan Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 3.835