Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT02804880
NCT02804880CompletedNot Applicable

Building Capacity and Promoting Smoking Cessation in the Community Via "Quit to Win" Contest 2016: a Single-blind Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial on High Intensity Active Referral and Simple Text Messaging to Achieve Abstinence

The University of Hong Kong1 site in 1 country1,200 target enrollmentStarted: June 1, 2016Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Completed
Enrollment
1,200
Locations
1
Primary Endpoint
smoking quit rate change from baseline at 3-month follow-up

Study Overview

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.

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Health Services Research
Masking
Single (Participant)

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No

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

Exclusion Criteria

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

Arms & Interventions

Group B

Experimental

LTM + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Intervention: LTM (Behavioral)

Group B

Experimental

LTM + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Intervention: AWARD (Behavioral)

Group B

Experimental

LTM + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Intervention: Referral card (Other)

Group B

Experimental

LTM + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Intervention: A4 leaflet (Other)

Group A

Experimental

HAR + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Intervention: HAR (Behavioral)

Group A

Experimental

HAR + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Intervention: AWARD (Behavioral)

Group A

Experimental

HAR + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Intervention: Referral card (Other)

Group A

Experimental

HAR + AWARD + Referral Card + A4 leaflet

Intervention: A4 leaflet (Other)

Group C

Active Comparator

Brief advice + 12-page booklet

Intervention: Brief advice (Behavioral)

Group C

Active Comparator

Brief advice + 12-page booklet

Intervention: 12-page booklet (Other)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

smoking quit rate change from baseline at 3-month follow-up

Time Frame: 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

Time Frame: 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 Outcomes

  • Biochemical validated quit rate(6-month follow-up)
  • Smoking reduction rate change from baseline at 3-month follow-up(3-month follow-up)
  • Smoking reduction rate change from baseline at 6-month follow-up(6-month follow-up)
  • Smoking quit attempt change from baseline at 3-month follow-up(3-month follow-up)
  • Smoking quit attempt change from baseline at 6-month follow-up(6-month follow-up)
  • quit rate for all subjects change from baseline at 3- and 6-month follow-up(3 and 6 months follow-up)
  • Reduction rate for all subjects change from baseline at 3- and 6-month follow-up(3 and 6 months follow-up)
  • Use of smoking cessation service(3 and 6 months follow-up)
  • Use of smoking cessation service for all subjects(3 and 6 months follow-up)
  • Biochemical validated quit rate(3-month follow-up)

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Dr. Wang Man-Ping

Assistant Professor

The University of Hong Kong

Study Sites (1)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials