Literature DB >> 31313293

Incentives for smoking cessation.

Caitlin Notley1, Sarah Gentry, Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Linda Bauld, Rafael Perera, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31313293      PMCID: PMC6635501          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004307.pub6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  196 in total

1.  Age of initiation, smoking patterns, and risk in a population of working adults.

Authors:  H A Lando; D T Thai; D M Murray; L A Robinson; R W Jeffery; N E Sherwood; D J Hennrikus
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Social support in a worksite smoking intervention. A test of theoretical models.

Authors:  S D McMahon; L A Jason
Journal:  Behav Modif       Date:  2000-04

3.  The impact of an incentive-based worksite health promotion program on modifiable health risk factors.

Authors:  K Poole; K Kumpfer; M Pett
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct

4.  Randomised controlled trial using social support and financial incentives for high risk pregnant smokers: significant other supporter (SOS) program.

Authors:  R J Donatelle; S L Prows; D Champeau; D Hudson
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  An empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of tangible incentives in increasing participation and behavior change in a worksite health promotion program.

Authors:  R W Jeffrey; J L Forster; J E Baxter; S A French; S H Kelder
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec

6.  Implementing a year-long, worksite-based incentive program for smoking cessation.

Authors:  R E Glasgow; J F Hollis; L Pettigrew; L Foster; M J Givi; G Morrisette
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb

7.  A worksite smoking intervention: a 2 year assessment of groups, incentives and self-help.

Authors:  L A Jason; D Salina; S D McMahon; D Hedeker; M Stockton
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  1997-03

8.  Intraclass correlation for measures from a worksite health promotion study: estimates, correlates, and applications.

Authors:  B C Martinson; D M Murray; R W Jeffery; D J Hennrikus
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug

9.  Effects of monetary contingencies on smoking relapse: influences of trait depression, personality, and habitual nicotine intake.

Authors:  D G Gilbert; D M Crauthers; D K Mooney; F J McClernon; R A Jensen
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.157

10.  Smokers with multiple behavioral risk factors: how are they different?

Authors:  N E Sherwood; D J Hennrikus; R W Jeffery; H A Lando; D M Murray
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.018

View more
  54 in total

1.  Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation.

Authors:  Jonathan Livingstone-Banks; Emma Norris; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce; Robert West; Martin Jarvis; Emma Chubb; Peter Hajek
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-28

2.  A pilot feasibility study of a behavioral intervention for nicotine vaping cessation among young adults delivered via telehealth.

Authors:  Amanda M Palmer; Rachel L Tomko; Lindsay M Squeglia; Kevin M Gray; Matthew J Carpenter; Tracy T Smith; Jennifer Dahne; Benjamin A Toll; Erin A McClure
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 4.492

3.  Multilevel Intervention for Low-Income Maternal Smokers in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Authors:  Bradley N Collins; Stephen J Lepore; Brian L Egleston
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  No evidence of the clinical utility of single-item breakpoint to inform on tobacco demand in persons with substance use disorders.

Authors:  Alba González-Roz; Roberto Secades-Villa; Gema Aonso-Diego; Sara Weidberg; José R Fernández-Hermida
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 4.530

Review 5.  Quality of smoking cessation advice in guidelines of tobacco-related diseases: An updated systematic review.

Authors:  Winifred Ekezie; Rachael L Murray; Sanjay Agrawal; Ilze Bogdanovica; John Britton; Jo Leonardi-Bee
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 2.659

6.  Cost-Effectiveness of Four Financial Incentive Programs for Smoking Cessation.

Authors:  Louise B Russell; Kevin G Volpp; Pui L Kwong; Benjamin S Cosgriff; Michael O Harhay; Jingsan Zhu; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2021-12

7.  Long-term efficacy of contingency management treatment based on objective indicators of abstinence from illicit substance use up to 1 year following treatment: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Meredith K Ginley; Rory A Pfund; Carla J Rash; Kristyn Zajac
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2021-01

8.  A Preoperative Contingency Management Intervention for Smoking Abstinence in Cancer Patients: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Alana M Rojewski; Lisa M Fucito; Nathaniel L Baker; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Matthew J Carpenter; Steven L Bernstein; Benjamin A Toll
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 4.244

9.  The Influence of Increasing Levels of Provider-Patient Discussion on Quit Behavior: An Instrumental Variable Analysis of a National Survey.

Authors:  Bian Liu; Serena Zhan; Karen M Wilson; Madhu Mazumdar; Lihua Li
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 4.614

10.  Evaluation of Combined Financial Incentives and Deposit Contract Intervention for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Daren R Anderson; Samantha Horn; Dean Karlan; Amanda E Kowalski; Jody L Sindelar; Jonathan Zinman
Journal:  J Smok Cessat       Date:  2021-03-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.