Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41398243›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2025

Lottery incentives for smoking cessation at the workplace: a cluster randomized trial.

Koen van der Swaluw, Eline Roordink, Nina van der Vliet, Maarten Schipper, Marieke Hiemstra, Marcel Zeelenberg, Karin Proper, Mattijs Lambooij

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Koen van der SwaluwDepartment of Behavior and Health, Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands. koen.vanderswaluw@ru.nl.
Eline RoordinkDepartment of Behavior and Health, Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Nina van der VlietCentre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Maarten SchipperDepartment of Statistics, Data Science and Mathematical Modelling, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Marieke HiemstraDepartment of Behavior and Health, Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Marcel ZeelenbergDepartment of Social Psychology, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Karin ProperDepartment of Behavior and Health, Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Mattijs LambooijDepartment of Behavior and Health, Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking is the largest behavioral risk factor for loss of healthy life years. Many smokers intend and try to quit, but have trouble realizing their behavioral health goals. When workplace cessation-support is accompanied by incentives, this can increase its effectiveness. Based on principles from behavioral economics and psychology, regret lotteries have supported the realization of other health behaviors. Regret lotteries capitalize regret aversion by always informing winners at the deadline, but withholding prizes if they smoked. This study builds on previous applications of regret lotteries to test its potential, using a novel combination of incentives, the workplace as a context and smoking as the target behavior.

methodsWe compared a workplace group cessation training (control arm) to the same training plus regret lotteries (intervention arm). To test its effect on smoking cessation, we performed a cluster randomized trial with 13 organizations and 111 participants, followed for 52 weeks. Participants in the intervention arm additionally participated in 13 weekly lotteries, followed by a long-term lottery after 26 weeks. In each lottery, winners were drawn from all participants in a group. Winners were promised to always learn the outcome of the lotteries. However, the winners could only claim their prize if they did not smoke. The primary outcome of interest was continuous smoking abstinence at 52 weeks from the quit date, self-reported and biochemically validated with a carbon monoxide measurement and a cut-off point of ≤ 9 parts per million. A multi-level logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the treatment effects after 52 weeks, while accounting for the clustered data pattern within organizations. We adjusted for Fagerström nicotine dependence score, education level, income, age and gender. Secondary outcomes were abstinence at weeks 13 and 26 after the quit-date.

resultsAt the 52-week primary outcome point of this trial, in the control arm, 23.9% of participants were continuously abstinent opposed to 43.2% in the intervention arm (OR = 3.25; 95% CI, 0.99-10.70). Thirteen weeks after the quit date, in the control arm, 35.8% of participants were continuously abstinent opposed to 68.2% in the intervention arm (OR = 3.66; 95% CI, 1.47-9.16). After 26 weeks, in the control arm, 25.4% of participants were continuously abstinent opposed to 54.6% in the intervention arm (OR = 3.24; 95% CI, 1.27-8.22).

conclusionsAlthough differences were only statistically significant up to 26 weeks, we found meaningful and practically relevant increases in smoking cessation due to the lottery intervention at the main outcome point. The intervention design was rooted in behavioral economics and builds on previous successful applications. Therefore, the results show enough potential to theorize and further apply this method in a field setting, that can benefit from the theoretical, methodological and practical lessons learned in this trial.

trial registrationThe trial protocol and materials were reviewed and approved by the Radboud University Ethical Review Board (ECSW-2019-114). The study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (trial registration number: NTR NL84632, 17 March 2020) and lottery drawings were performed by an independent notary.

Indexed as

MotivationSmoking CessationWorkplaceAdultCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBehavioral economicsCommitment deviceHealth incentivesRandomized controlled trialSmoking cessationWorkplace health promotion

Identifiers

PMID41398243
PMCPMC12706908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.