A worksite smoking intervention: a 2 year assessment of groups, incentives and self-help

Jason, Leonard A.; Salina, Doreen; McMahon, Susan D.; Hedeker, Donald; Stockton, Mary

doi:10.1093/her/12.1.129

Cited by 41 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eight studies (11,18,23,26,27,31,39,48) matched subjects or clusters to factors such as worksite size, gender distribution, blue-and white-collar distribution, and other factors. Four studies stratified worksites in the design phase before the randomization (11,13,36,37).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the trials used worksite, or whatever unit of cluster randomization, as the unit of analysis (8,11,13,22,26,27,39). Those using workers as the unit of analysis took into account the effect of the cluster randomization procedure by incorporating a nested design structure (29,36,37,51) or by using other procedures (18,30,31,35,47). Seven trials did not take cluster randomization into account when analyzing their data (12,16,24,28,38,47,49).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most (N=27) of them focused on tobacco control either exclusively (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21) or as part of a wider health promotion program (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34). Sixteen health promotion programs focused exclusively (35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43) or in part (23-27, 31, 34, 43) on diet.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To achieve better results with behavioral changes, some interventions included support over time (15, 17, 19-21, 28, 31, 32, 34, 40, 50), involvement of family members (37), within and between company competitions or incentives (10,13,18,20,22,26,27,29,37,47), or participation of the occupational health services of the company in program planning and implementation (15-17, 20, 23, 24, 26-28, 31, 34, 39). …”

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the former type of trials did not offer any kind of intervention to the control group, while most studies without incentives included a minimal intervention in the control group. Only five studies compared the effectiveness of providing incentives within the same trial (13,15,18,20,29). Four found a higher smoking quit rate in the incentive group (10.4% versus 7.5%, 20% versus 16.5%, and 12.9% versus 12%) (13,18,29) or a higher abstinence smoking rate (40% versus 23%) (20).…”

Section: Smoking Cessation Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Health promotion trials at worksites and risk factors for cancer

Janer¹,

Sala²,

Kogevinas³

2002

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following articles refer to this text: 2002;28(3) Studies of worksite health promotion have frequently reported larger effects than those at the community level.Many of these studies have serious methodological problems. Forty-five worksite health promotion trials following specific quality criteria were selected and estimated for behavioral changes in cancer risk factors and the effectiveness of different intervention components. Tobacco control programs found quit rates of about 5% with relapse rates of 40% to 80% at 6 months after the intervention. Effectiveness increased with the duration of the intervention for at least 6 months, repeated contacts with the participants, continuous support, and tailored messages. There was less evidence for the long-term effectiveness of incentives. Trials on diet, alcohol, physical activity, overweight, and solar radiation showed the same positive trends. The overall evidence indicates a modest but positive effect of health promotion trials at worksites and the effect, for smoking cessation trials, is slightly larger than that of community-based trials. Many of the recommendations made to increase participation and effectiveness were not based on empirical data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Smoking Cessation Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Health promotion trials at worksites and risk factors for cancer

Janer¹,

Sala²,

Kogevinas³

2002

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation

Stead

Lancaster

2002

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

222

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Group therapy offers individuals the opportunity to learn behavioural techniques for smoking cessation, and to provide each other with mutual support. Objectives To determine the effect of group-delivered behavioural interventions in achieving long-term smoking cessation. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, using the terms 'behavior therapy', 'cognitive therapy', 'psychotherapy' or 'group therapy', in May 2016. Selection criteria Randomized trials that compared group therapy with self-help, individual counselling, another intervention or no intervention (including usual care or a waiting-list control). We also considered trials that compared more than one group programme. We included those trials with a minimum of two group meetings, and follow-up of smoking status at least six months after the start of the programme. We excluded trials in which group therapy was provided to both active therapy and placebo arms of trials of pharmacotherapies, unless they had a factorial design. Data collection and analysis Two review authors extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the interventions provided to the groups and the controls, including programme length, intensity and main components, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in participants smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. We analysed participants lost to follow-up as continuing smokers. We expressed effects as a risk ratio for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study and comparison, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE criteria.

show abstract