Search

Introduction Financial incentive programs promote smoking cessation. However, the incentive amount which should be provided—and how this may interact with other program characteristics—is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of the design of incentive programs for smoking cessation on current smokers’ perceptions of programs and willingness to enroll. Method An online discrete choice experiment was conducted amongst adult current smokers residing in the United Kingdom (N = 430). Hypothetical incentive programs were described using five attributes (incentive amount, incentive type, frequency of sessions, reward schedules, program location). Participants responded to a series of choice sets comprised of two hypothetical programs. For each set, participants selected their preferred program. They then specified whether they would enroll in their preferred program if it were available. Analyses also considered the effect of participant income on preferences. Results Overall, participants preferred higher amounts over lower amounts, cash over vouchers, healthcare settings over workplaces, and consistent amounts over an escalating schedule. One session per week was the most preferred session frequency. Willingness to enroll increased quadratically with the incentive amount, although this increase slowed for higher amounts. Although middle- and high-income smokers preferred slightly higher amounts (cf. low-income participants), enrollment choices did not differ by income. Conclusion The characteristics of incentive programs influence smokers’ perceptions of programs and willingness to enroll. Higher amounts may encourage greater enrollment rates, but there will likely be a ceiling point beyond which increasing the incentive amount does not meaningfully increase enrollments. Implications There is increasing evidence incentive programs aid smoking cessation. Yet, the variety in previous program designs means how to best structure programs, including optimal incentive amount and the impact of the design on potential enrollment rates, remains unclear. This study suggests enrollments may be highest when incentive amounts are higher, rewards of a consistent amount in cash are provided, and sessions occur once per week in a healthcare setting. Although higher-income participants may desire higher incentive amounts compared to lower-income participants, this may not translate into differences in willingness to enroll.

Introduction Studies demonstrate that financial incentive programs increase smoking cessation. However, there is little guidance on which incentive magnitudes will ensure optimal enrollment and motivation levels. This study investigates current smokers’ perceptions of varying incentive magnitudes to identify whether there is evidence for optimal amount(s) and whether perceptions differ by income group. Methods Studies 1 (N = 56) and 2 (N = 147) were conducted online via Prolific.co. Current smokers were randomly shown multiple hypothetical incentive programs that differed only in the incentive amount offered. For each program, smokers rated its appeal and their likelihood of enrolling and predicted their motivation to quit if enrolled. Growth models were used to investigate the relationship between perspectives and the incentive amount. Results An increasing quadratic trend in smokers’ perceptions of programs as the incentive amount increased was identified. Incentive amounts beyond approximately £50–75 per week (£500–£750 total) did not significantly alter perceptions of programs. In Study 2, high-income smokers found programs significantly less appealing and motivating than low-income smokers, although no significant between-group differences were observed in the likelihood of enrollment. No significant differences were observed between low- and middle-income smokers. Conclusions Increasing the incentive amount increased smoker’s perceptions of programs. This relationship was curvilinear, meaning there may be a point beyond which further increasing the amount will not improve enrollment or motivation levels. Incentives appear equally appealing to low- and middle-income smokers; the population among whom smoking is most prevalent. Future research could explore other elements of program design and whether findings hold under real-world conditions. Implications While acknowledging that they work, policymakers frequently request information about the monetary amount needed for incentive programs to be effective, and if this differs by income level. We investigated these questions using smokers’ perceptions of hypothetical cessation programs that differed in the amount offered. An increasing quadratic trend in perceptions of programs by the amount and potential cut points was observed, suggesting a point may exist beyond which increasing the incentive will not improve perceptions of programs or enrollment levels. High-income smokers may not perceive incentives to be as appealing as other income groups, but appear equally willing to enroll.

Objective: Investigate the smoking-related outcomes and feasibility of a pharmacy led financial incentive program for smoking cessation. Design: Multi-site single-arm trial of the Tobacco Free Communities program. Setting: Community pharmacies within the Glamorgan Spring Bay (Site 1) and George Town (Site 2) municipalities of Tasmania. Participants: Adult smokers. Based on funding, the recruitment target was 76 smokers. Interventions: Pharmacy staff provided quitting advice through 7 sessions over 3 months. At 6 sessions, abstinent participants (no cigarettes in the previous week and expired carbon monoxide ≤4 ppm) were rewarded with AU$50 vouchers. Main outcome measures: Smoking-related outcomes were decreased smoking (self-reported cigarettes per day and carbon monoxide levels) and abstinence rates. Feasibility outcomes were meeting the recruitment target, participant retention and participants' views of the program (measured by interview data from Site 2). Results: Ninety individuals enrolled. Sixty-two participants were included in analyses; remaining participants were excluded from analyses because they did not consent to use of their data within this study or had carbon monoxide ≤4 ppm at enrolment. Smoking (carbon monoxide and cigarettes per day) significantly decreased between enrolment and the first financial incentive session. Twelve participants (19.35%) were abstinent at the end of the program. Yet retention was poor; only 13 participants (20.97%) attended all sessions. Interviews suggested participants found the program beneficial. Conclusions: Providing financial incentive within rural community pharmacies could be a viable method of encouraging smoking reductions and quit attempts. Additional work is needed to increase retention and compare effects to usual care pharmacy practices.