Building Capacity and Promoting Smoking Cessation in the Community Via "Quit to Win" Contest 2016

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Smoking Cessation
• Interventions: Behavioral: Brief advice; Behavioral: LTM; Behavioral: HAR; Behavioral: AWARD; Other: 12-page booklet; Other: Referral card; Other: A4 leaflet

• Registration Number: NCT02804880
• Lead Sponsor: The University of Hong Kong

Brief Summary

The present study will examine (1) the effectiveness of personalised active referral to smoking cessation (SC) services and text messaging on encouraging SC services (2) explore the use of CBPR model to build capacity and to engage community partners in taking on this important public health issue for sustainability in the community. In addition, process evaluation will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the recruitment activity and how it is linked with the overall program outcomes.

Detailed Description

Although smoking prevalence is decreasing in Hong Kong, there are still 641,300 daily smokers (10.5%; Census and Statistics Department, 2015) and half will be killed by smoking (Lam, 2012) which accounts for over 7,000 deaths per year (Lam, Ho, Hedley, Mak, \& Peto, 2001). Smoking also accounts for a large amount of medical cost, long-term care and productivity loss of US$688 million (0.6% Hong Kong GDP) (Census \& Statistics Department, 2001; McGhee et al., 2006) . Smoking is a highly addictive behavior and it is difficult for smokers with strong nicotine dependence to quit without assistance. On the other hand, reaching and helping the many smokers who have no intention to quit is a challenge, because they are unlikely to seek professional help from smoking cessation services.

The Quit and Win programme provides an opportunity to reach and encourage a large group of smokers to make quit attempt and maintain abstinence. The Quit and Win model posits that smokers participating in the contest will have higher motivation to quit with incentives and better social support (Cahill \& Perera, 2011). Studies have found that such quitting contests or incentive programs appeared to reach a large number of smokers and demonstrated a significantly higher quit rate for the quit and win group than for the control group (Cahill \& Perera, 2015).

Smoking cessation services in Hong Kong are under-used with most of the adult daily smokers (79.6%) who had never used smoking cessation services (Census and Statistics Department, 2015). Among these smokers, only 2.4% were willing to use the services. Our previous RCT in previous QTW Contest 2015 evaluated the effects of low-intensity active referral (LAR) vs. very brief general SC advice (VBA) on quitting. LAR included onsite AWARD counselling and collection of smokers' personal contact information for SC services providers to connect with the smokers. Findings at 3-month follow-up of this RCT suggested the LAR intervention resulted in significantly higher self-reported quit rate than VBA in the control group (18.7% vs 14.0%. P\<0.001).

It is warranted to evaluate if a higher intensity active referral (HAR) and/or text messaging on encouraging SC services use can achieve even higher quit rate when compared with only VBA is given in the control group. Noted the use of text-messaging is the cheaper method than HAR. By using the same design of control group in QTW 2015, we can combine and compare the 2 years QTW intervention of HAR, LAR and text-messaging using network meta-analysis. This will contribute to finding out a more cost-effective way to increase the quit rate through using SC services.

Therefore, the present study will examine (1) the effectiveness of personalised active referral to smoking cessation (SC) services and text messaging on encouraging SC services (2) explore the use of CBPR model to build capacity and to engage community partners in taking on this important public health issue for sustainability in the community. In addition, process evaluation will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the recruitment activity and how it is linked with the overall program outcomes.

Basic Information
|
Recruitment & Eligibility
|
Study & Design
|
Trial Locations

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2016-06-01
• Study First Submitted: 2016-06-14
• Study First Submitted QC: 2016-06-16
• Study First Posted: 2016-06-17
• Status Verified: 2016-10
• Primary Completion: 2017-04-30
• Study Completion: 2017-08-31
• Last Update Submitted: 2017-10-24
• Last Update Posted: 2017-10-26

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 1200

Inclusion Criteria

Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above

• Smoke at least 1 cigarette per day in the past 3 months
• Able to communicate in Cantonese
• Exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) 4 ppm or above, assessed by a validated CO smokerlyzer
• Have Intention to quit / reduce smoking

Read More

Exclusion Criteria

• Smokers who have difficulties (either physical or cognitive condition) to communicate
• Currently following other smoking cessation programs

Read More

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Group A	A4 leaflet	HAR + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet
Group C	Brief advice	Brief advice + 12-page booklet
Group B	AWARD	LTM + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet
Group B	A4 leaflet	LTM + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet
Group C	12-page booklet	Brief advice + 12-page booklet
Group A	Referral card	HAR + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet
Group B	LTM	LTM + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet
Group B	Referral card	LTM + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet
Group A	HAR	HAR + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet
Group A	AWARD	HAR + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
smoking quit rate change from baseline at 3-month follow-up	3-month follow-up	The primary outcomes are self-reported 7-day point prevalence (pp) quit rate at 3 month among the three groups
smoking quit rate change from baseline at 6-month follow-up	6-month follow-up	The primary outcomes are self-reported 7-day point prevalence (pp) quit rate at 3 month among the three groups

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Biochemical validated quit rate	6-month follow-up	biochemically validated quit rates at 6 month in the three groups
Smoking reduction rate change from baseline at 3-month follow-up	3-month follow-up	rate of smoking reduction by at least half of baseline amount in the three groups
Smoking reduction rate change from baseline at 6-month follow-up	6-month follow-up	rate of smoking reduction by at least half of baseline amount in the three groups
Smoking quit attempt change from baseline at 3-month follow-up	3-month follow-up	number of quit attempts at 3 month among the three groups
Smoking quit attempt change from baseline at 6-month follow-up	6-month follow-up	number of quit attempts at 6 month among the three groups
quit rate for all subjects change from baseline at 3- and 6-month follow-up	3 and 6 months follow-up	the above cessation and reduction outcomes of all subjects participating in Quit to Win contest 2016
Reduction rate for all subjects change from baseline at 3- and 6-month follow-up	3 and 6 months follow-up	the above cessation and reduction outcomes of all subjects participating in Quit to Win contest 2016
Use of smoking cessation service	3 and 6 months follow-up	use of smoking cessation at 3 and 6 month follow-up among three groups
Use of smoking cessation service for all subjects	3 and 6 months follow-up	Use of smoking cessation service for all subjects participating in Quit to Win contest 2016

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

The Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health (COSH); 🇨🇳 Hong Kong, China