Cited by 246Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Incentives for smoking cessation

Open access
Notley, Caitlin, Gentry, Sarah, Livingstone-Banks, Jonathan, Bauld, Linda, Perera, Rafael, Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie·2019·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Background: Financial incentives, monetary or vouchers, are widely used in an attempt to precipitate, reinforce and sustain behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been used in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and within community programmes. Objectives: To determine the long‐term effect of incentives and contingency management programmes for smoking cessation. Search methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The most recent searches were conducted in July 2018. Selection criteria: We considered only randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to smoking cessation incentive schemes or control conditions. We included studies in a mixed‐population setting (e.g. community, work‐, clinic‐ or institution‐based), and also studies in pregnant smokers. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcome measure in the mixed‐population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up (at least six months from the start of the intervention). In the trials of pregnant women we used abstinence measured at the longest follow‐up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy. Where available, we pooled outcome data using a Mantel‐Haenzel random‐effects model, with results reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using adjusted estimates for cluster‐randomised trials. We analysed studies carried out in mixed populations separately from those carried out in pregnant populations. Main results: Thirty‐three mixed‐population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 21,600 participants; 16 of these are new to this version of the review. Studies were set in varying locations, including community settings, clinics or health centres, workplaces, and outpatient drug clinics. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias, and 10 to be at high risk of bias, with the rest at unclear risk. Twenty‐four of the trials were run in the USA, two in Thailand and one in the Phillipines. The rest were European. Incentives offered included cash payments or vouchers for goods and groceries, offered directly or collected and redeemable online. The pooled RR for quitting with incentives at longest follow‐up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.49 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.73; 31 RCTs, adjusted N = 20,097; I2 = 33%). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of six studies where an incentive for cessation was offered at long‐term follow up (result excluding those studies: RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.69; 25 RCTs; adjusted N = 17,058; I2 = 36%), suggesting the impact of incentives continues for at least some time after incentives cease. Although not always clearly reported, the total financial amount of incentives varied considerably between trials, from zero (self‐deposits), to a range of between USD 45 and USD 1185. There was no clear direction of effect between trials offering low or high total value of incentives, nor those encouraging redeemable self‐deposits. We included 10 studies of 2571 pregnant women. We judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, one at high risk of bias, and seven at unclear risk. When pooled, the nine trials with usable data (eight conducted in the USA and one in the UK), delivered an RR at longest follow‐up (up to 24 weeks post‐partum) of 2.38 (95% CI 1.54 to 3.69; N = 2273; I2 = 41%), in favour of incentives. Authors' conclusions: Overall there is high‐certainty evidence that incentives improve smoking cessation rates at long‐term follow‐up in mixed population studies. The effectiveness of incentives appears to be sustained even when the last follow‐up occurs after the withdrawal of incentives. There is also moderate‐certainty evidence, limited by some concerns about risks of bias, that incentive schemes conducted among pregnant smokers improve smoking cessation rates, both at the end of pregnancy and post‐partum. Current and future research might explore more precisely differences between trials offering low or high cash incentives and self‐incentives (deposits), within a variety of smoking populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd004307.pub6

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Using the overview of reviews approach, five reviews were identified that addressed the benefits and harms of behavioral interventions for supporting women to stop smoking during pregnancy.

    “Using the overview of reviews approach, five reviews were identified that addressed the benefits and harms of behavioral interventions for supporting women to stop smoking during pregnancy ([Table 1](#T1)).[39](#R39),[47](#R47),[111](#R111)-[113](#R113)”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Notley, C., Gentry, S., Livingstone-Banks, J., Bauld, L., Perera, R., & Hartmann-Boyce, J.
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of Oxford; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; Oxford UK
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Notley, Caitlin
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-17
Volume
2019
Issue
7
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W4236471626
Cited by
246
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 12
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (16/114/20, ACF-2016-15-001, SRP/16/114/20)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
smoking cessation, financial incentives, contingency management, vouchers, cash payments, smoking abstinence, pregnant smokers, long-term abstinence, behavior change, tobacco dependence treatment, community-based intervention, risk of bias, risk of bias assessment, risk of bias tools

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review