Thomas Janet L, Luo Xianghua, Bengtson Jill, Wang Qi, Ghidei Winta, Nyman John, Lust Katherine, An Lawrence, Wetter David W, Epstein Leonard, Ahluwalia Jasjit S
Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
School of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Addiction. 2016 Feb;111(2):331-9. doi: 10.1111/add.13144. Epub 2015 Nov 11.
Quit & Win contests (in which smokers pledge to quit smoking for a defined period in exchange for the chance to win a prize) may be well-suited for college smokers. We tested the effectiveness of multiple versus single Quit & Win contests and that of added counseling versus no counseling in smoking cessation.
A two-by-two, randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up.
Nineteen institutions in Minnesota, Texas, Ohio and Wisconsin.
College student smokers (n = 1217) were randomized within site to four conditions: single (n = 306), multiple contests alone (n = 309), single contest plus counseling (n = 296) or multiple contests with counseling (n = 306).
Participants in the standard contest condition (T1 and T2) were asked to abstain from all tobacco products for a 30-day period; those with confirmed abstinence were eligible for a lottery-based prize. Participants assigned to the multiple contest conditions (T3 and T4) participated in the 30-day contest and were enrolled automatically into two additional contest periods with an escalating prize structure. Participants randomized into the counseling conditions (T2 and T4) received up to six telephone-administered Motivation and Problem Solving (MAPS) counseling sessions over the 12-week treatment period.
The primary outcome was biochemically verified 30-day point prevalence (PP) abstinence rate at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the same abstinence at end of treatment (4 months) and a proxy measure of 6-month verified continuous abstinence rate. Outcomes were based on all participants randomized.
We found no evidence of an interaction between number of contests and counseling. Abstinence rates for multiple (13.5%) and single (11.7%) contests were not significantly different at 6 months [odds ratio (OR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.84-1.66]. The addition of counseling did not improve 6-month abstinence significantly (13.7 versus 11.6%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.86-1.70). Multiple contests increased abstinence at 4 months (19.3 versus 10.3%, OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.50-2.91) and continuous abstinence at 6 months (7.8 versus 3.8%, OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.28-3.56).
Multiple Quit & Win contests may increase smoking abstinence rates in college students more than single contests, but it is not clear whether adding counseling to these interventions produces any additional benefit.
戒烟竞赛(吸烟者承诺在规定时间内戒烟以换取获奖机会)可能非常适合大学生吸烟者。我们测试了多次戒烟竞赛与单次戒烟竞赛的效果,以及在戒烟过程中增加咨询服务与不提供咨询服务的效果。
一项为期6个月随访的二乘二随机对照试验。
明尼苏达州、得克萨斯州、俄亥俄州和威斯康星州的19所机构。
大学生吸烟者(n = 1217)在各地点内随机分为四种情况:单次竞赛组(n = 306)、仅多次竞赛组(n = 309)、单次竞赛加咨询组(n = 296)或多次竞赛加咨询组(n = 306)。
标准竞赛组(T1和T2)的参与者被要求在30天内戒除所有烟草制品;确认戒除者有资格参加抽奖获奖。分配到多次竞赛组(T3和T4)的参与者参加30天竞赛,并自动进入另外两个奖金递增的竞赛期。随机分为咨询组(T2和T4)的参与者在12周的治疗期内接受最多6次电话指导的动机与问题解决(MAPS)咨询服务。
主要结局是6个月时经生化验证的30天点患病率(PP)戒烟率。次要结局是治疗结束时(4个月)相同的戒烟情况以及6个月经验证的持续戒烟率的替代指标。结局基于所有随机分组的参与者。
我们没有发现竞赛次数与咨询服务之间存在相互作用的证据。多次竞赛组(13.5%)和单次竞赛组(11.7%)在6个月时的戒烟率没有显著差异[优势比(OR)= 1.18,95%置信区间(CI)= 0.84 - 1.66]。增加咨询服务并没有显著提高6个月时的戒烟率(13.7%对11.6%,OR = 1.21,95% CI = 0.86 - 1.70)。多次竞赛在4个月时提高了戒烟率(19.3%对10.3%,OR = 2.09,95% CI = 1.50 - 2.91),在6个月时提高了持续戒烟率(7.8%对3.8%,OR = 2.14,95% CI = 1.28 - 3.56)。
多次戒烟竞赛可能比单次竞赛更能提高大学生的戒烟率,但尚不清楚在这些干预措施中增加咨询服务是否会带来额外益处。