A controlled trial of a Quit and Win contest. Predictors of smoking cessation in an incentive-based community intervention. Effect of a community action program on adult quit smoking rates in rural australian towns: the CART project. Using a low-cost, prize-drawing incentive to improve recruitment rate at a work-site smoking cessation clinic.
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. This article describes one outcome of a randomized controlled trial of community action for cancer prevention. The aims of this article were to (a) explore the effectiveness of a community action program in decreasing community smoking rates in rural Australian towns and (b) describe the relationship between adult smoking quit and uptake rates and demographic variables.
                In 1992, 20 towns were selected for randomization. Community action involved formation of community committees and utilization of access point networks to initiate and maintain intervention strategies. At post-test, outcomes were proportion of "quitters" from a cohort of self-described smokers, proportion of "uptakers" from a cohort of self-described nonsmokers, and "net effect."
                Differences in quit rate, uptake rate, and net effect for intervention compared to control condition favored the intervention in all cases, although mainly nonsignificant. Significantly more male smokers quit in intervention towns than in control towns [7.0% (95% CI: 0.6, 13.5)].
                Given that CART utilized and improved upon strategies argued as effective in the literature, the limited success of the project in reducing adult smoking, considered in combination with COMMIT findings, suggests the need for further innovation in the field.
                Copyright American Health Foundation and Academic Press. A major obstacle in promoting smoking cessation programs through work sites is recruiting adequate numbers of smokers. We used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the effect of a low-cost incentive (a prize drawing) for attracting participants to a smoking cessation clinic offered at multiple work sites. Sixty-eight automobile dealerships were randomized to either a "prize" or control group. Smokers employed at work sites in the prize group were offered a chance to win a dinner for two for participating in a smoking cessation clinic. In November 1986, a questionnaire assessing tobacco use habits was sent to 3432 employees of the 68 work sites. A cohort of 844 smokers was identified from a total of 1986 employees who returned surveys. All smokers received registration materials to participate, free of charge, in one of three smoking cessation programs held in June 1987. The overall employee participation rate in the smoking cessation program was 6.6% (n = 56) with an overall work-site participation rate of 37.3% (n = 25). The rate was nearly identical in the "prize" and control groups (employee rate: 6.3% versus 6.7%; work-site rate: 39.4% versus 35.3%, respectively).
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.