Deposit? Yes, please! The effect of different modes of assigning reward- and deposit-based financial incentives on effort

The effectiveness and uptake of financial incentives can differ substantially between reward- and deposit-based incentives. Therefore, it is unclear to whom and how different incentives should be assigned. In this study, the effect of different modes of assigning reward- and deposit-based financial incentives on effort is explored in a two-session experiment. First, students' (n = 228, recruited online) discounting, loss aversion and willingness to pay a deposit were elicited. Second, an incentivized real-effort task was completed (n = 171, 25% drop-out). Two modes of assigning reward- or deposit-based financial incentives were compared: random assignment and 'nudged' assignment - assignment based on respondent characteristics allowing opting out. Our results show that respondents receiving nudged assignment earned more and persisted longer on the real-effort task than respondents randomly assigned to incentives. We find no differences in effectiveness between reward-based or deposit-based incentives. Overall, 39% of respondents in the nudged assignment mode followed-up the advice to take deposit-based incentives. The effect of deposit-based incentives was larger for the respondents who followed-up the advice than for respondents that randomly received deposit-based incentives. Overall, these findings suggest that nudged assignment may increase incentives' effect on effort. Future work should extend this approach to other contexts (e.g., behaviour change).</p

Public support for smoke-free private indoor and public outdoor areas in the Netherlands:A trend analysis from 2018-2022

INTRODUCTION: In addition to smoke-free policies in indoor public and workplaces, governments increasingly implement smoke-free policies at beaches, in parks, playgrounds and private cars ('novel smoke-free policies'). An important element in the implementation of such policies is public support. In the context of the ambition of the Netherlands to reach a smoke-free generation by 2040, we investigated temporal changes in public support for novel smoke-free policies.METHODS: We analyzed annual cross-sectional questionnaires in a representative sample of the Dutch population from 2018 to 2022. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to model public support for each smoke-free policy area as a function of time (calendar year), smoking status, gender, and socioeconomic status. Interaction terms were added for time with smoking status and with socioeconomic status.RESULTS: A total of 5582 participant responses were included. Between 2018 and 2022, support increased most for smoke-free policies regarding train platforms (+16%), theme parks (+12%), beaches (+10%), and terraces (+10%). In 2022, average support was higher than 65% for all categories of smoke-free places and highest for private cars with children (91%). Regression analyses indicated significant increases in support over time within each category of smoke-free places (adjusted odds ratio, AOR between 1.09 and 1.17 per year), except smoke-free private cars with children (AOR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.89-1.05). Regardless of smoking status, support was high for places where children often go.CONCLUSIONS: Support for novel smoke-free places in the Netherlands is high and increasing, in particular for places frequented by children. This indicates the potential to implement such measures in the Netherlands.</p

Public support for smoke-free private indoor and public outdoor areas in the Netherlands:A trend analysis from 2018-2022

INTRODUCTION: In addition to smoke-free policies in indoor public and workplaces, governments increasingly implement smoke-free policies at beaches, in parks, playgrounds and private cars ('novel smoke-free policies'). An important element in the implementation of such policies is public support. In the context of the ambition of the Netherlands to reach a smoke-free generation by 2040, we investigated temporal changes in public support for novel smoke-free policies.METHODS: We analyzed annual cross-sectional questionnaires in a representative sample of the Dutch population from 2018 to 2022. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to model public support for each smoke-free policy area as a function of time (calendar year), smoking status, gender, and socioeconomic status. Interaction terms were added for time with smoking status and with socioeconomic status.RESULTS: A total of 5582 participant responses were included. Between 2018 and 2022, support increased most for smoke-free policies regarding train platforms (+16%), theme parks (+12%), beaches (+10%), and terraces (+10%). In 2022, average support was higher than 65% for all categories of smoke-free places and highest for private cars with children (91%). Regression analyses indicated significant increases in support over time within each category of smoke-free places (adjusted odds ratio, AOR between 1.09 and 1.17 per year), except smoke-free private cars with children (AOR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.89-1.05). Regardless of smoking status, support was high for places where children often go.CONCLUSIONS: Support for novel smoke-free places in the Netherlands is high and increasing, in particular for places frequented by children. This indicates the potential to implement such measures in the Netherlands.</p

Pediatric patients' views regarding smoke-free hospital grounds compared to those of adults:A survey study

INTRODUCTION: Children are important stakeholders in discussions about regulation of smoking and protection from secondhand smoke, but are rarely acknowledged as such. We explored the opinion of pediatric patients and other key stakeholders regarding the planned smoke-free zone around the Erasmus MC, a large university hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted a survey among pediatric patients and their parents, Erasmus MC employees, visitors, and adult patients, before implementation of the outdoor smoke-free zone, to assess their opinions on smoking and the planned smoke-free policy. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed mostly using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: In all, 91 parent-child dyads and 563 employees, visitors, patients and students filled in the questionnaires. Over 90% of children reported that they were regularly exposed to tobacco smoke, most often on the streets. Many underlined the exemplary role of healthcare providers, and 89% felt that nobody should be allowed to smoke near the hospital. Among parents, 89% were (very) positive towards the planned implementation of the smoke-free zone. In addition, 70% of adult patients, 81% of employees, 65% of visitors, 89% of students and 75% of ‘others’ were (very) positive about the new smoke-free policy. Smokers and former smokers generally were less positive about the policy. CONCLUSIONS: Children generally disapproved smoking around a hospital and felt that healthcare providers should be a good example concerning not smoking. The majority of adult patients, employees and visitors support a smoke-free zone surrounding the hospital, and virtually all pediatric patients and their parents do. Children should be acknowledged as important stakeholders in smoke-free policies and should be involved in planning and implementation

Smokers’ responses to being addressed when smoking in an outdoor voluntary smoke-free zone:An observational study

INTRODUCTION: Addressing smokers who smoke in a voluntary smoke-free area is vital to its successful implementation. Many people perceive barriers in addressing smokers due to fear of negative responses. Insights in actual responses are currently lacking. METHODS: This is an observational field study at the voluntary smoke-free zone surrounding the Erasmus MC and two schools in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. In the first month after implementing the zone, Erasmus MC representatives performed rounds to address smokers who were smoking inside the zone. Four people observed addressors for two weeks then they also addressed the smokers. Smokers were classified as employees, patients, students, or other. We noted whether smokers were addressed directly or indirectly, and their verbal and behavioral responses to being addressed. Differences between the responses of the groups were assessed using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: In all, 331 smokers were observed of whom 73% were addressed directly. Most verbal reactions were positive (46%) or neutral (18%). Employees were more likely to respond guiltily, whereas patients more often responded angrily than the others. After being addressed, the majority of smokers either extinguished their cigarette (41%) or left to continue smoking outside the smoke-free zone (34%). CONCLUSIONS: Most smokers showed a positive or neutral response when being addressed about smoking inside the smoke-free zone and the majority adapted their behavior to comply with the policy. These findings may help decrease barriers for those in doubt about addressing smokers that fail to comply with a smoke-free policy

PERSonalised Incentives for Supporting Tobacco cessation (PERSIST) among healthcare employees: a randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the primary preventable risk factor for disease and premature mortality. It is highly addictive and cessation attempts are often unsuccessful. Incentive-based programmes may be an effective method to reach sustained abstinence. Individualisation of incentives based on personal characteristics yields potential to further increase the effectiveness of incentive-based programmes. METHOD: A randomised controlled trial among healthcare workers recruited through their employer and signed up for a group-based smoking cessation programme. The intervention under study is the provision of personalised incentives on validated smoking cessation at several time points after the smoking cessation programme. A total of 220 participants are required. Participants are randomised 1:1 into intervention (personalised incentives) or control (no incentives). All participants join the group-based programme. Incentives are provided on validated abstinence directly after the smoking cessation programme and after 3, 6 and 12 months.Incentives are provided according to four schemes:(1) Standard: total reward size €350, pay-out scheme: €50 (t=0), €50 (t=3 months), €50 (t=6 months) and €200 (t=12 months), (2) descending: total reward size €300, pay-out scheme: €150, €100, €50 and €0, (3) ascending: total reward size: €400, pay-out scheme: €0, €0, €50 and €350 and (4) deposit: total reward size €450, pay-out scheme: €50, €50, €150, €200; participants pay a €100 deposit, returned conditional on abstinence after 6 months.Advice on which incentive scheme suits participants best is based on willingness to provid

Assessing public support for extending smoke-free policies beyond enclosed public places and workplaces:protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Smoke-free enclosed public environments are effective in reducing exposure to secondhand smoke and yield major public health benefits. Building on this, many countries are now implementing smoke-free policies regulating smoking beyond enclosed public places and workplaces. In order to successfully implement such 'novel smoke-free policies', public support is essential. We aim to provide the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assessing levels and determinants of public support for novel smoke-free policies. Methods and analysis The primary objective of this review is to summarise the level of public support for novel smoke-free policies. Eight online databases (Embase.com, Medline ALL Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, WHO Library Database, Latin America

Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Smoke-free policies are essential to protect people against tobacco smoke exposure. To successfully implement smoke-free policies that go beyond enclosed public places and workplaces, public support is important. We undertook a comprehensive systematic review of levels and determinants of public support for indoor (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, six electronic databases were searched for studies (published between 1 January 2004 and 19 January 2022) reporting support for (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies in representative samples of at least 400 respondents aged 16 years and above. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual reports using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The primary outcome was proportion support for smoke-free policies, grouped according to location covered. Three-level meta-analyses, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed. Findings: 14,749 records were screened, of which 107 were included; 42 had low risk of bias and 65 were at moderate risk. 99 studies were included in the meta-analyses, reporting 326 measures of support from 896,016 individuals across 33 different countries. Support was pooled for indoor private areas (e.g., private cars, homes: 73%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 66–79), indoor semi-private areas (e.g., multi-unit housing: 70%, 95% CI: 48–86), outdoor hospitality areas (e.g., café and restaurant terraces: 50%, 95% CI: 43–56), outdoor non-hospitality areas (e.g., school grounds, playgrounds, parks, beaches: 69%, 95% CI: 64–73), outdoor semi-private areas (e.g., shared gardens: 67%, 95% CI: 53–79) and outdoor private areas (e.g., private balconies: 41%, 95% CI: 18–69). Subcategories showed highest support for smoke-free cars with children (86%, 95% CI: 81–89), playgrounds (80%, 95% CI: 74–86) and school grounds (76%, 95% CI: 69–83). Non-smokers and ex-smokers were more in favour of smoke-free policies compared to smokers. Support generally increased over time, and following implementation of each smoke-free policy. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that public support for novel smoke-free policies is high, especially in places frequented by children. Governments should be reassured about public support for implementation of novel smoke-free policies. Funding: Dutch Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation Netherlands, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation

De volgende stap voor een Rookvrije Generatie: Een multidisciplinair onderzoek naar kansen voor uitbreiding rookvrije omgevingen in Nederland

In Nederland staan rookvrije (kind)omgevingen op de politieke agenda. Dit multidisciplinaire onderzoek geeft een overzicht van rookvrij beleid voor auto’s en speeltuinen dat in andere landen ingevoerd is. We beschrijven de juridische kaders die invoering mogelijk maakten, de gezondheidsimpact en de mate van publieke steun voor deze vernieuwende rookvrije maatregelen, en de ervaringen van sleutelfiguren die betrokken zijn bij de implementatie van dit rookvrije beleid in het buitenland. Vanuit de volksgezondheid en de rechten van het kind zijn rookvrije maatregelen gerechtvaardigd. Na invoering van rookvrij beleid voor auto’s elders daalde de blootstelling aan tabaksrook bij kinderen met ruim 30%. In Schotland nam na implementatie ook het aantal ziekenhuisopnamen van kinderen met astma af. De gezondheidswinst van rookvrije speeltuinen is nog niet gekwantificeerd. Publieke steun voor deze uitbreidingen van rookvrij beleid is hoog, ook onder rokers. Uit interviews kwam naar voren dat het centraal stellen van de gezondheid van het kind belangrijk is, en dat een alomvattend landelijk tabaksontmoedigingsbeleid wordt geadviseerd. Dit project biedt handvatten om ook in Nederland verdere stappen te nemen om blootstelling aan tabaksrook en de bijkomende schadelijke gevolgen voor kinderen te verminderen. Op basis van de ervaringen uit het buitenland lijkt uitbreiding van landelijke wetgeving naar rookvrije auto’s en speeltuinen een kansrijke bijdragende stap richting een Rookvrije Generatie