Dataset Information

Incentive programmes for smoking cessation: cluster randomized trial in workplaces in Thailand.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare several monetary incentive programmes for promoting smoking abstinence among employees who smoke at workplaces in a middle income country. DESIGN:Parallel group, open label, assessor blinded, cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Large industrial workplaces in metropolitan Bangkok, Thailand. PARTICIPANTS:Employees who smoked cigarettes and planned to quit within six months recruited from 101 worksite clusters (84 different companies). INTERVENTIONS:Worksites were digitally cluster randomized by an independent investigator to usual care or usual care plus one of eight types of incentive programmes. Usual care consisted of one time group counseling and cessation support through a 28 day text messaging programme. The incentive programmes depended on abstinence at three months and varied on three intervention components: refundable deposits, assignment to a teammate, and bonus size ($20 (£15; €17) or $40). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was biochemically verified seven day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were programme acceptance at enrollment and smoking abstinence at three months (end of intervention) and at six months. All randomized participants who had complete baseline information were included in intention-to-treat analyses; participants with missing outcomes were coded as continuing smokers. RESULTS:Between April 2015 and August 2016, the trial enrolled 4190 participants. Eighteen were omitted because of missing baseline covariates and death before the primary endpoint, therefore 4172 participants were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Programme acceptance was relatively high across all groups: 58.7% (2451/4172) overall and 61.3% (271/442) in the usual care group. Abstinence rates at 12 months did not differ among deposit programmes (336/2253, 14.9%) and non-deposit programmes (280/1919, 14.6%; adjusted difference 0.8 points, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 4.3, P=0.65), but were somewhat lower for team based programmes (176/1348, 13.1%) than individual based programmes (440/2824, 15.6%; -3.2 points, -6.6 to -0.2, P=0.07), and higher for $40 bonus programmes (322/1954, 16.5%) than programmes with no bonus (148/1198, 12.4%; 5.9 points, 2.1 to 9.7, P=0.002). The $40 individual bonus was the most efficacious randomization group at all endpoints. Intervention components did not strongly interact with each other. CONCLUSIONS:Acceptance of monetary incentive programmes for promoting smoking abstinence was high across all groups. The $40 individual bonus programmes increased long term smoking abstinence compared with usual care, although several other incentive designs did not, such as team based programmes and deposit programmes. Incentive design in workplace wellness programmes might influence their effectiveness at reducing smoking rates in low resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02421224).

SUBMITTER: White JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7555070 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Incentive programmes for smoking cessation: cluster randomized trial in workplaces in Thailand.

White Justin S JS Lowenstein Christopher C Srivirojana Nucharee N Jampaklay Aree A Dow William H WH

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20201014

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare several monetary incentive programmes for promoting smoking abstinence among employees who smoke at workplaces in a middle income country.<h4>Design</h4>Parallel group, open label, assessor blinded, cluster randomized controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Large industrial workplaces in metropolitan Bangkok, Thailand.<h4>Participants</h4>Employees who smoked cigarettes and planned to quit within six months recruited from 101 worksite clusters (84 different companies).<h4>I ...[more]

PMID: 33055176

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFinancial incentives promote many health behaviors, but effective ways to deliver health incentives remain uncertain.MethodsWe randomly assigned CVS Caremark employees and their relatives and friends to one of four incentive programs or to usual care for smoking cessation. Two of the incentive programs targeted individuals, and two targeted groups of six participants. One of the individual-oriented programs and one of the group-oriented programs entailed rewards of approximately $800 for smoking cessation; the others entailed refundable deposits of $150 plus $650 in reward payments for successful participants. Usual care included informational resources and free smoking-cessation aids.ResultsOverall, 2538 participants were enrolled. Of those assigned to reward-based programs, 90.0% accepted the assignment, as compared with 13.7% of those assigned to deposit-based programs (P<0.001). In intention-to-treat analyses, rates of sustained abstinence from smoking through 6 months were higher with each of the four incentive programs (range, 9.4 to 16.0%) than with usual care (6.0%) (P<0.05 for all comparisons); the superiority of reward-based programs was sustained through 12 months. Group-oriented and individual-oriented programs were associated with similar 6-month abstinence rates (13.7% and 12.1%, respectively; P=0.29). Reward-based programs were associated with higher abstinence rates than deposit-based programs (15.7% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001). However, in instrumental-variable analyses that accounted for differential acceptance, the rate of abstinence at 6 months was 13.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.8) higher in the deposit-based programs than in the reward-based programs among the estimated 13.7% of the participants who would accept participation in either type of program.ConclusionsReward-based programs were much more commonly accepted than deposit-based programs, leading to higher rates of sustained abstinence from smoking. Group-oriented incentive programs were no more effective than individual-oriented programs. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and CVS Caremark; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526265.).

Project description:BackgroundTreatment for tobacco dependence is not available in many low-resource settings, especially in developing countries.PurposeTo test the impact of a novel mix of monetary and social incentives on smoking abstinence in rural communities of Thailand.DesignAn RCT of commitment contracts and team incentives for rural smokers to quit smoking. Smokers were not blinded to treatment status, although the assessor of the biochemical urine test was.Setting/participantsAll adult smokers living in the study area were eligible to participate; 215 adult smokers from 42 villages in Nakhon Nayok province, Thailand, participated. Fourteen smokers who lacked teammates were dropped.InterventionA total of 201 smokers were assigned to a two-person team, and then randomly assigned by team (in a 2:1 ratio) with computer-generated random numbers to receive smoking-cessation counseling (control group) or counseling plus offer of a commitment contract, team incentives, and text message reminders for smoking cessation at 3 months (intervention group).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day abstinence at 6 months, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes include study participation, biochemically verified abstinence at 3 months, self-reported abstinence at 14 months, and the incremental cost per quitter of the intervention, nicotine gum, and varenicline in Thailand. Data were collected in 2010-2011 and analyzed in 2012.ResultsThe trial enrolled 215 (10.5%) of 2055 smokers. The abstinence rate was 46.2% (61/132) in the intervention group and 14.5% (10/69) in the control group (adjusted OR 7.5 [3.0-18.6]) at 3 months; 44.3% (58/131) and 18.8% (13/69) at the primary end point of 6 months (adjusted OR 4.2 [1.8-9.7]); and 42.0% (55/131) and 24.6% (17/69) at 14 months (adjusted OR 2.2 [1.0-4.8]). The purchasing power parity-adjusted incremental cost per quitter from the intervention is $281 (95% CI=$187, $562), less than for nicotine gum ($1780, 95% CI=$1414, $2401) or varenicline ($2073, 95% CI=$1357, $4388) in Thailand.ConclusionsThe intervention enhanced abstinence by 91%-136% at 6 months, relative to the control group, although self-reports at 14 months suggest tapering of the treatment effect. The intervention may offer a viable, cost-effective alternative to current smoking-cessation approaches in low-resource settings.Trial registrationThis study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311115.

Project description:It is a priority to achieve smoking cessation in diabetic smokers, given that this is a group of patients with elevated cardiovascular risk. Furthermore, tobacco has a multiplying effect on micro and macro vascular complications. Smoking abstinence rates increase as the intensity of the intervention, length of the intervention and number and diversity of contacts with the healthcare professional during the intervention increases. However, there are few published studies about smoking cessation in diabetics in primary care, a level of healthcare that plays an essential role in these patients. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive smoking cessation intervention in diabetic patients in primary care.Cluster randomized trial, controlled and multicentric. Randomization unit: Primary Care Team.546 diabetic smokers older than 14 years of age whose disease is controlled by one of the primary care teams in the study.Continuous tobacco abstinence (a person who has not smoked for at least six months and with a CO level of less than 6 ppm measured by a cooximeter) , evolution in the Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Change, number of cigarettes/day, length of the visit. Point of assessment: one- year post- inclusion in the study.Brief motivational interview for diabetic smokers at the pre-contemplation and contemplation stage, intensive motivational interview with pharmacotherapy for diabetic smokers in the preparation-action stage and reinforcing intevention in the maintenance stage.A descriptive analysis of all variables will be done, as well as a multilevel logistic regression and a Poisson regression. All analyses will be done with an intention to treatment basis and will be fitted for potential confounding factors and variables of clinical importance. Statistical packages: SPSS15, STATA10 y HLM6.The present study will try to describe the profile of a diabetic smoker who receives the most benefit from an intensive intervention in primary care. The results will be useful for primary care professionals in their usual clinical practice.Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT00954967.

Dataset Information

Incentive programmes for smoking cessation: cluster randomized trial in workplaces in Thailand.

Publications

Incentive programmes for smoking cessation: cluster randomized trial in workplaces in Thailand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets