Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Mass Media Cessation Contests

Tabs

Snapshot

Summary of CPSTF Finding

The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) finds insufficient evidence to determine whether mass media cessation contests reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure.

Intervention

Tobacco cessation contests are short-duration, community-wide events that use mass media for promotion, recruitment, and motivation. The goal is to get tobacco users to commit to quit on a targeted cessation date or during a specified period. Additional incentives for participation and successful cessation may be offered and interventions may include quit events.

CPSTF Finding and Rationale Statement

Read the CPSTF finding pdf icon [PDF - 133 kB].

Users who viewed this also viewed

What the CPSTF Found

About The Systematic Review

The CPSTF finding is based on evidence from a systematic review that found only one relevant study (search period 1980–2000).

The systematic review was conducted on behalf of the CPSTF by a team of specialists in systematic review methods, and in research, practice, and policy related to reducing tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure.

Context

There is no content for this section.

Summary of Results

Detailed results from the systematic review are available in the published evidence review [PDF - 6.37 MB].

The systematic review included only one study.

The qualifying study evaluated a multicomponent smoking cessation program in New York City.
At six-month follow-up, self-reported cessation was 13.3 percentage points higher when compared with smokers who received only general health education materials.

Summary of Economic Evidence

An economic review of this intervention was not conducted because the CPSTF did not have enough information to determine if the intervention works.

Applicability

Applicability of this intervention across different settings and populations was not assessed because the CPSTF did not have enough information to determine if the intervention works.

Evidence Gaps

Additional research and evaluation are needed to answer the following questions and fill existing gaps in the evidence base.

What intervention components contribute most to effectiveness of multicomponent interventions? What components contribute the least?
What are the minimum and optimal requirements for the duration and intensity of mass media campaigns?
What are the most effective combinations of messages for mass media campaigns?
Are these interventions effective in increasing tobacco use cessation in the population?
Do recruited tobacco users exposed to these interventions quit at a greater rate than recruited tobacco users not exposed to these interventions?
What are the rates of participation in these interventions?
Do significant differences exist regarding the effectiveness of these interventions, based on the level of scale (i.e., national, state, local) at which they are delivered?
What are the effects of mass media campaigns among populations that differ by race and ethnicity?
What are the effects of these interventions on secondhand smoke exposure?
Do mass media campaigns that focus on tobacco have additional effects on other drug use?
What are the costs of mass media campaigns, especially campaigns that achieve an effective intensity over an extended duration?
How do the costs per additional quitter compare with other interventions intended to reduce tobacco use?
What is the cost-benefit, cost-utility, or cost per illness averted of these interventions?
What are the most effective ways to maintain adequate funding levels for mass media campaigns?

Study Characteristics

The single qualifying study evaluated a multicomponent smoking cessation program in New York City. Interventions included a cessation manual and video, telephone cessation support, and the opportunity to participate in smoking cessation contests.

Publications

Hopkins D, Briss PA, Ricard CJ, et al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001;20(2S):16-66.

Task Force on Community Services. Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001;20(2S):10-5.

Hopkins DP, Husten CG, Fielding JE, Rosenquist JN, Westphal LL. Evidence reviews and recommendations on interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: a summary of selected guidelines. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001;20(2S):67-87.

Curry SJ, Fiore MC, Burns ME. Community-level tobacco interventions: perspective of managed care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001;20(2S):6-7.

Satcher D. Forward: note from the Surgeon General. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001;20(2S):1.

Warner KE. Tobacco control policy: from action to evidence and back again. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001;20(2S):2-5.

Wasserman MP. Guide to community preventive services: state and local opportunities for tobacco use reduction. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001;20(2S):8-9.

Task Force on Community Services, Zaza S, Briss PA, Harris KW. Tobacco. In: The Guide to Community Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health?. The Guide to Community Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health? Atlanta (GA): Oxford University Press; 2005:3-79.

Supporting Materials

Analytic Framework

Analytic Framework pdf icon [PDF - 117 kB]

Summary Evidence Table

Summary Evidence Table -- Effectiveness Review pdf icon [PDF - 104 kB]

Included Studies

The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).

Resnicow K, Vaughan R, Futterman R, et al. A self-help smoking cessation program for inner-city African Americans: results from the Harlem Health Connection Project. Health Education and Behavior 1997;24:201-17.

Additional Materials

There is no information for this section.

Search Strategies

Electronic searches for literature were conducted in Medline, EconLit, and the database of the Office on Smoking and Health (OSH). The OSH database, a focused database of tobacco prevention and control articles, was so complete that we did not conduct searches of additional electronic databases. We also reviewed the references listed in all retrieved articles and consulted with experts on the chapter development team. With very few exceptions (e.g., one final report to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation), included studies were published in journals. To be included in the review, a study had to

Have a publication date of 1980 to May 2000
Address at least one area in our conceptual framework (ETS, initiation, cessation)
Be a primary study rather than, for example, a guideline or review
Take place in an industrialized country or countries
Be written in English
Meet the evidence review and the Community Guide chapter development team’s definition of the interventions
Provide information on one or more outcomes related to the analytic frameworks; and Compare a group of people who had been exposed to the intervention with a group of people who had not been exposed or who had been less exposed. (The comparisons could be concurrent or in the same group over a period of time.)

Our initial database searches were conducted in January 1998. A second database search was conducted in August 1999. Any study added after August 1999 was referred by members of the chapter development team or identified in the reference lists of retrieved articles.

Review References