Cited by 379Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesBehavioral Health and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Trial of Four Financial-Incentive Programs for Smoking Cessation

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives promote many health behaviors, but effective ways to deliver health incentives remain uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned CVS Caremark employees and their relatives and friends to one of four incentive programs or to usual care for smoking cessation. Two of the incentive programs targeted individuals, and two targeted groups of six participants. One of the individual-oriented programs and one of the group-oriented programs entailed rewards of approximately $800 for smoking cessation; the others entailed refundable deposits of $150 plus $650 in reward payments for successful participants. Usual care included informational resources and free smoking-cessation aids. RESULTS: Overall, 2538 participants were enrolled. Of those assigned to reward-based programs, 90.0% accepted the assignment, as compared with 13.7% of those assigned to deposit-based programs (P<0.001). In intention-to-treat analyses, rates of sustained abstinence from smoking through 6 months were higher with each of the four incentive programs (range, 9.4 to 16.0%) than with usual care (6.0%) (P<0.05 for all comparisons); the superiority of reward-based programs was sustained through 12 months. Group-oriented and individual-oriented programs were associated with similar 6-month abstinence rates (13.7% and 12.1%, respectively; P=0.29). Reward-based programs were associated with higher abstinence rates than deposit-based programs (15.7% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001). However, in instrumental-variable analyses that accounted for differential acceptance, the rate of abstinence at 6 months was 13.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.8) higher in the deposit-based programs than in the reward-based programs among the estimated 13.7% of the participants who would accept participation in either type of program. CONCLUSIONS: Reward-based programs were much more commonly accepted than deposit-based programs, leading to higher rates of sustained abstinence from smoking. Group-oriented incentive programs were no more effective than individual-oriented programs. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and CVS Caremark; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526265.).

Overview

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1414293

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 46 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jacob P, 2002, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 11, 1668
  2. 10.2307/2291629 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 376

Metadata

Authors
Halpern, S. D., French, B., Small, D. S., Saulsgiver, K., Harhay, M. O., Audrain-McGovern, J., Loewenstein, G., Brennan, T. A., Asch, D. A., & Volpp, K. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania Health System (US)
  • Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (US)
  • CVS Health (United States) (US)
  • Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2015-05-28
Volume
372
Issue
22
Pages
2108-2117
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W259184059
Cited by
379
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 21
FWCI
34.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG034546, RC2AG036592)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA159932)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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, reward-based incentives
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Reward, Smoking Cessation

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