ArticleTobacco induced diseases2026
Impact of a provider-level incentive on smoking cessation treatment use: A secondary dataset analysis using administrative claims data and a cross-sectional survey in Japanese health check-up settings (N-EQUITY2203).
Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare professionals are recommended to deliver smoking cessation support (SCS) to smokers. However, the effectiveness of provider-level financial incentives on smoker's behaviors, including the use of smoking cessation treatment (SCT), has been controversial. The aim of this observational study was to explore the association of a provider-level incentive to deliver a general lifestyle intervention, including SCS, with the smoker's use of SCT, and describe the current state of and barriers to delivering SCS at health check-up settings.
methodsThis observational study in a health check-up setting consisted of: 1) a retrospective, quasi-experimental study through secondary use of an administrative claims database between 2018 and 2020; and 2) a cross-sectional questionnaire survey in 2023. Change in the proportion of SCT users pre- and post-introduction of the incentive was analyzed using a claims database, employing a difference-in-difference (DID) approach using adjusted linear regression. To describe SCS at health check-up settings, a cross-sectional survey was sent to 26 health check-up centers that had received the incentives which requested a response from a healthcare professional at each center. Responses were presented as descriptive statistics.
resultsDID analysis using data for 126137 smokers revealed no significant change in the proportion of SCT users following introduction of the provider-level incentive (DID= -0.15; 95% CI: -1.09-0.80 per 1000 smokers, p=0.759). The survey, which received responses from 24 health check-up centers, showed that only 27% of these centers provided smokers with contact information for SCT services. Furthermore, 71% and 67% of centers cited a lack of resources and self-efficacy, respectively, as perceived barriers to the delivery of SCS.
conclusionsThe provider-level incentive to deliver the general lifestyle intervention was not associated with SCT use in health check-up settings. Increasing SCT use may require strategies aimed at overcoming barriers to the delivery of SCS.
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.