CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Decreasing Tobacco Use Among Workers: Incentives & Competitions to Increase Smoking Cessation

CDC

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

Worksite-based incentives and competitions to reduce tobacco use among workers offer rewards to individual workers and to teams as a motivation to participate in a cessation program or effort.
• Rewards can be provided for participation, for success in achieving a specified behavior change, or for both.
• Types of rewards may include guaranteed financial payments, lottery chances for monetary or other prizes, and return of self-imposed payroll withholdings.

The Task Force recommends worksite-based incentives and competitions when combined with additional interventions to support individual cessation efforts based on sufficient evidence of effectiveness in reducing tobacco use among workers.

Impact

Community mobilization integrated with additional interventions (i.e. stronger local laws for retailers) decrease youth tobacco use and access to these products.

Results / Accomplishments

Results from the Systematic Reviews:
Twelve studies qualified for the review.

Worksite-based Incentives and Competitions When Combined with Additional Interventions to Reduce Tobacco Use among Workers

• One group randomized trial of 32 worksites found a reduction in self-reported tobacco use of 2.1 percentage points (p=0.03) among workers in worksites with a smoking cessation program and self-imposed payroll withholdings.
• Tobacco quit rates: median increase of 4.3 percentage points (interquartile interval: 2.7 to 8.0 percentage points; 14 study arms in 11 studies).
• A subset of five studies evaluated a similar combination of interventions (including at a minimum, an incentive, a worksite-based tobacco cessation group, and educational materials or activities). In these studies, tobacco quit rates increased by a median of 10 percentage points.
• Individual rewards ranged from $10 to $237.
• Lottery prizes ranged from $40 to $500.
• The presence of an incentive or competition was not associated with a consistent increase in participation in worksite tobacco programs in the studies considered in this review; however participation rates were high in most of the intervention and comparison study arms.

About this Promising Practice

Primary Contact
The Community Guide
1600 Clifton Rd, NE
MS E69
Atlanta, GA 30329
(404) 498-1827
communityguide@cdc.gov
https://www.thecommunityguide.org/
Topics
Health / Alcohol & Drug Use
Source
Community Guide Branch Epidemiology and Analysis Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Location
USA
For more details
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html#topics
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/tobacco/worksite/...
Target Audience
Adults

Related Promising Practices

  1. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Decreasing Tobacco Use Among Workers: Smoke-Free Policies to Reduce Tobacco Use
  2. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs for Evidence-Based Cessation Treatments
  3. Sonoma County Tobacco Use Prevention
  4. Waterloo Smoking By-law and Cigarette Labeling
  5. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Reducing Tobacco Use Initiation: Increasing the Unit Price of Tobacco Products
  6. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Restricting Minors’ Access to Tobacco Products: Community Mobilization with Additional Interventions

More

Related Content for: CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Decreasing Tobacco Use Among Workers: Incentives & Competitions to Increase Smoking Cessation

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.