Concurrent quit & win and nicotine replacement therapy voucher giveaway programs: participant characteristics and predictors of smoking abstinence. A controlled trial of a Quit and Win contest. Predictors of smoking cessation in an incentive-based community intervention. A comparison of self-help approaches to smoking cessation.
This study compares the participant characteristics, program costs, and outcomes of a Quit & Win contest and a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) voucher giveaway promotion. Both programs were conducted simultaneously so that smokers could enroll in either one program alone (n = 849 and 690, respectively) or both programs (Combination group; n = 230). A follow-up telephone survey of a random sample of participants was conducted 4 to 7 months after enrollment to evaluate smoking status. At enrollment, participants in the three groups were comparable on most smoking and demographic variables, although Quit & Win participants were, on average, younger than those who signed up to get the NRT voucher. Compared with the characteristics of smokers in the region, those who enrolled in the intervention programs were heavier smokers and had more years of formal education. At follow-up, the self-reported quit rates were similar across the three intervention groups, ranging between 25 percent and 30 percent. The only evidence for a higher quit rate among those in the Combination group was among younger smokers. On a simple estimated cost per quit basis, the Quit & Win (130 dollars) and NRT (179 dollars) voucher interventions appear roughly comparable. In all groups, abstinence rates were higher among lighter smokers (<21 cigarettes per day), participants who did not live with another smoker, and those who were married. Both the Quit & Win and NRT voucher giveaway programs were effective in recruiting smokers to make a quit attempt, although combining both interventions did not generally increase abstinence rates. To evaluate the impact of a state-of-the-art Quit and Win contest on tobacco quit rates at 3, 6, and 12 months after the 30-day quit period.
                Quasi-experimental with a volunteer sample of 494 Quit and Win contest registrants (treatment group) and 512 randomly selected tobacco users not exposed to the promotional media campaign (control group). Intervention included a 30-day quit period to be eligible for large cash prizes; provider advice via weekly mailings; online and telephone quit assistance; media campaign; and community support.
                Community-based intervention in Kentucky.
                A total of 1006 adult tobacco users.
                Quit rates were measured using 7-day point prevalence for tobacco use. Urine cotinine measurements confirmed self-reported quitting.
                Treatment group participants were significantly more likely than controls to experience quitting during the 1-year follow-up, as determined by both self-report and urine confirmation. After adjusting for baseline differences in demographics, tobacco use, and stage of change, those in the treatment group had 2.6 times the odds of reporting quitting in the postintervention period and 5.3 times the odds of experiencing quitting confirmed by urine cotinine, relative to controls. Women, minorities, and low-income tobacco users had equal odds of quitting as men, whites, and those with higher incomes.
                That the contest was minimally intensive and yielded a relatively high, quit rate demonstrates the potential effectiveness of the intervention. The Quit and Win Challenge, an incentive-based intervention, was implemented in two counties in Eastern Ontario to encourage adult smokers to quit smoking. Participants (n = 231) were compared with adult smokers selected at random (n = 385) from a larger, four-county area. Baseline characteristics were assessed by telephone interview, including socio-demographic and smoking-related factors. Follow-up interviews were also conducted by telephone. Initial and follow-up response rates were high (over 84%) in both groups. Compared with the random survey group, Quit and Win participants tended to be younger, more educated, employed and heavier smokers, with fewer friends or co-workers who smoked. After one year, 19.5% of them reported that they were smoke-free, whereas less than 1% of the random group had achieved cessation. This translates into an impact rate of 0.17%, affecting 1 in 588 adult smokers. With the exception of the smokers' baseline "stage of change," none of the socio-demographic or smoking factors was predictive of cessation. We conclude that this intervention achieved only limited success and attracted certain sectors of the community disproportionately, i.e. smokers who were highly motivated to quit. We argue that increased access to proven cessation therapies would improve the impact of such interventions. The current study evaluated the effectiveness of widely used self-help materials for quitting smoking. Five hundred and seventy smokers volunteered during a baseline survey to participate in the evaluation. After random assignment, 200 were mailed National Cancer Institute (NCI) "Quit for Good" materials, 200 the Minnesota "Quit and Win" program, and the remaining 170 were assigned to a nonintervention control condition. Results at 7-month follow-up failed to indicate treatment effects either for abstinence or for reported quit attempts. A number of smokers quit prior to the mailing of self-help materials, suggesting that a telephone prompt in itself may have been an important stimulus to cessation. Overall abstinence at follow-up was 10%. Contrary to expectation, successful participants were less likely to use a number of specific preparation strategies for quitting. The results are instructive in providing a large-scale assessment of self-help materials in a population of smokers that was not specifically seeking treatment.
Quit and win contests at local and regional level appear to deliver quit rates above baseline community rates, although the population impact of the contests seems to be relatively low. Contests may be subject to levels of deception which could compromise the validity of the intervention. International contests may prove to be an effective mechanism, particularly in developing countries, but a lack of well-designed comparative studies precludes any firm conclusions.