Skip to content

Promoting Smoking Cessation in the Community Via QTW 2014

Building Capacity and Promoting Smoking Cessation in the Community Via Quit to Win Contest 2014: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02188433
Enrollment
1307
Registered
2014-07-11
Start date
2014-05-31
Completion date
2016-10-31
Last updated
2016-11-18

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Smoking Cessation Intervention

Keywords

Effectiveness of quit immediately (QI) and cut down to quit (CDTQ) interventions in achieving smoking abstinence

Brief summary

Although smoking prevalence is decreasing in Hong Kong, there are still 645,000 daily smokers 10.7% ( Thematic Household Survey 2012) 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) (McGhee et al., 2006) (Census & Statistics Department (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government), 2001). 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 & Petera, 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 & Rafael, 2008). The Quit to Win Contest in 2014 and the study's interventions using cut down to quit approach are theoretically based on the Health Action Process Approach ( HAPA) for the intervention group (Schwarzer, 2008). The HAPA suggests that one's intention of behavior change can be fostered by knowing that the new behavior has positive outcomes as opposed to the negative outcomes that accompany the current behavior; and planning (action planning and coping planning) which serves as an operative mediator between intentions and behavior. Using gradual cut down approach on smoking cessation will probably increase smoker's self-efficacy on smoking cessation as the process could be achieved at the smoker's own perceived pace without placing too much pressure on themselves but with greater control of self in the cessation process. This was supported by the evidence that smoking reduction approach led to a greater self-efficacy to resist smoking and increased subsequent quitting (Broms, Korhonen, & Kaprio, 2008). Most importantly, reducing cigarette consumption will lower the nicotine dependence which is associated with later abstinence (Hughes et al., 2004). On the other hand, quitting immediately will have a less sense of control and may be subjected to relapse thus lower the self-efficacy on quitting. Therefore, the present study will examine (1) effectiveness of the cut down to quit (CDTQ) and quit immediately (QI) approaches; (2) explore the use of Community-Based Participatory Research (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.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALQuit immediately (QI) / cut down to quit (CDTQ)

Use quit immediately (QI) or cut down to quit (CDTQ) interventions to achieve smoking abstinence

Sponsors

Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health
CollaboratorOTHER
The University of Hong Kong
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
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) of 4 ppm or above, assessed by a validated CO smokerlyzer * Have Intention to quit

Exclusion criteria

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

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
smoking quit rate3-, 6- and 12-month follow-upThe primary outcomes are self-reported 7-day point prevalence (pp) quit rate at 3 and 6 months among the two groups

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Biochemical validated quit rate3-, 6- and 12-month follow-upbiochemically validated quit rates at 3 and 6 months in the two groups
Smoking reduction rate3-, 6- and 12-month follow-uprate of smoking reduction by at least half of baseline amount in the two groups
Smoking quit attempt3-, 6- and 12-month follow-upnumber of quit attempts at 3 and 6 months among the two groups
quit rate and reduction rate for all subjects3-, 6- and 12-month follow-upthe above cessation and reduction outcomes of all subjects participating in Quit to Win contest 2014

Countries

China

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026