HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hennrikus, D. J. Articles by Liu, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hennrikus, D. J. Articles by Liu, J. Related Collections Health Promotion Smoking Cessation

Deborah J. Hennrikus, PhD, Robert W. Jeffery, PhD, Harry A. Lando, PhD, David M. Murray, PhD, Kerrin Brelje, RD, MPH, Beth Davidann, MPH, Judith S. Baxter, PhD, Dzung Thai, MPH, John Vessey, PhD and Jane Liu, MPH

At the time of the study, all authors were with the Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Deborah J. Hennrikus, PhD, Division of Epidemiology, 1300 S Second St, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55454–1015 (e-mail: hennrikus{at}epi.umn.edu).

Objectives. This study examined the effect of program format and incentives on participation and cessation in worksite smoking cessation programs.

Methods. Twenty-four worksites were randomized to 6 conditions that differed in cessation program format and the use of incentives. Programs were offered for 18 months in each worksite. A total of 2402 cigarette smokers identified at baseline were surveyed 12 and 24 months later to assess participation in programs and cessation.

Results. A total of 407 (16.9%) of the smoker cohort registered for programs; on the 12- and 24-month surveys, 15.4% and 19.4% of the cohort, respectively, reported that they had not smoked in the previous 7 days. Registration for programs in incentive sites was almost double that of no-incentive sites (22.4% vs 11.9%), but increased registration did not translate into significantly greater cessation rates. Program type did not affect registration or cessation rates.

Conclusions. Although incentives increase rates of registration in worksite smoking cessation programs, they do not appear to increase cessation rates. Phone counseling seems to be at least as effective as group programs for promoting smoking cessation in worksites.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. M. Murray, S. L. Pals, J. L. Blitstein, C. M. Alfano, and J. Lehman Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized Trials in Cancer: A Review of Current Practices J Natl Cancer Inst, April 2, 2008; 100(7): 483 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. G. Volpp, A. Gurmankin Levy, D. A. Asch, J. A. Berlin, J. J. Murphy, A. Gomez, H. Sox, J. Zhu, and C. Lerman A Randomized Controlled Trial of Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2006; 15(1): 12 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. P. Varnell, D. M. Murray, J. B. Janega, and J. L. Blitstein Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized Trials: A Review of Recent Practices Am J Public Health, March 1, 2004; 94(3): 393 - 399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]