SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019
Competitions for smoking cessation.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Incentives for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Incentives for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Systematic Evaluation of How Indicators of Inequity and Disadvantage Are Measured and Reported in Population Health Evidence Syntheses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Tailoring CONSORT-SPI to improve the reporting of smoking cessation intervention trials: An expert consensus study.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2024Article
- Interventions for smoking cessation: An overview of Cochrane reviews.Tobacco induced diseases · 2024Article
- Non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.BMC medicine · 2023Review
- Behavioral Economic Strategies to Improve Enrollment Rates in Clinical Research: Embedded Recruitment Pilot Trial.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Lottery incentives for smoking cessation at the workplace: design and protocol of the smoke-free lottery - a cluster randomized trial.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Smoking relapse reasons among current smokers with previous cessation experience in Shanghai: A cross-sectional study.Tobacco induced diseases · 2023Article
- Behavioral Economics and Tobacco Control: Current Practices and Future Opportunities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- One-month alcohol abstinence national campaigns: a scoping review of the harm reduction benefits.Harm reduction journal · 2022Article
- Can financial payments incentivize short-term smoking cessation in orthopaedic trauma patients? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment.Health economics review · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompetitions might encourage people to undertake and/or reinforce behaviour change, including smoking cessation. Competitions involve individuals or groups having the opportunity to win a prize following successful cessation, either through direct competition or by entry into a lottery or raffle.
objectivesTo determine whether competitions lead to higher long-term smoking quit rates. We also aimed to examine the impact on the population, the costs, and the unintended consequences of smoking cessation competitions. SEARCH
methodsThis review has merged two previous Cochrane reviews. Here we include studies testing competitions from the reviews 'Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation' and 'Quit & Win interventions for smoking cessation'. We updated the evidence by searching the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in June 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to experimental or control conditions. We also considered controlled studies with baseline and post-intervention measures in which participants were assigned to interventions by the investigators. Participants were smokers, of any age and gender, in any setting. Eligible interventions were contests, competitions, lotteries, and raffles, to reward cessation and continuous abstinence in smoking cessation programmes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, data from new studies were extracted independently by two review authors. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from smoking at least six months from the start of the intervention. We performed meta-analyses to pool study effects where suitable data were available and where the effect of the competition component could be separated from that of other intervention components, and report other findings narratively. MAIN
resultsTwenty studies met our inclusion criteria. Five investigated performance-based reward, where groups of smokers competed against each other to win a prize (N = 915). The remaining 15 used performance-based eligibility, where cessation resulted in entry into a prize draw (N = 10,580). Five of these used Quit & Win contests (N = 4282), of which three were population-level interventions. Fourteen studies were RCTs, and the remainder quasi-randomized or controlled trials. Six had suitable abstinence data for a meta-analysis, which did not show evidence of effectiveness of performance-based eligibility interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.74, N = 3201, I AUTHORS'
conclusionsAt present, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness, or a lack of it, of smoking cessation competitions. This is due to a lack of well-designed comparative studies. Smoking cessation competitions have not been shown to enhance long-term cessation rates. The limited evidence suggesting that population-based Quit & Win contests at local and regional level might deliver quit rates above baseline community rates has not been tested adequately using rigorous study designs. It is also unclear whether the value or frequency of possible cash reward schedules influence the success of competitions. Future studies should be designed to compensate for the substantial biases in the current evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.