The first nation-wide Quit and Win Contest in Sweden was held in 1988 with 12,840 participants. This corresponds to a participant rate of 6.4 per 1,000 daily tobacco users in Sweden. In order to follow up the long-term effects of cessation and to analyse the determinants for successful cessation, a panel (n = 946) of randomized participants were followed-up at 6 and 12 months with a mailed questionnaire. This gave a complete set of data for 557 (panel) respondents. Available baseline data from the participants’ entry forms included sex, age, occupation, specific tobacco habits, quitting attempts during the previous year, and place of residence. At the 12-month follow-up 21% had been tobacco-free for the whole year. In addition 9% of the participants relapsed into tobacco-use, then quit again and were tobacco-free at the 12-month follow-up. The success rate for those participants (14%) who used smokeless tobacco (oral snuff) was similar to that of smokers. The logistic regression showed a significantly better prognosis for success among those without any earlier quitting attempts during the previous year (OR 2.35), if the subjects participated of their own volition rather than having been recruited by a non-tobacco user (OR 1.74), and if they were married/co-habiting (OR 1.92), the results were also significantly improved. The results also show that as a population-based method, Quit and Win produced many successful tobacco quitters, and one year after the contest one-fifth of the participants were still abstinent.
1. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. A report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 89–8411, 1989.
2.
2. Thompson B, Wallack L, Lichstenstein E, Pechacek TF. Principles of community organizations and partnership for smoking cessation in the Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT). Intl. Quarterly of Community Health Education1990–91; 11 (3): 187–203.
3.
3. Green L, McAllister A. Macro-intervention to support health behaviour: Some theoretical perspectives and practical reflections. Health Educ Q1984; 11: 322–39.
4.
4 Milar WJ, Naegele BE. Time to quit: Community involvement in smoking cessation. Can J Public Health1987; 78: 109–14.
5.
5. Glynn T, Boyud G, Grunman J. Essential elements of self-help/minimal intervention strategies for smoking cessation. Health Educ Q1990; 17: 329–45.
6.
6. Glasgow RE, Klesges RC, Mizes JS, Pechacek TF. Quitting smoking: Strategies used and variables associated with success in a stop-smoking contest. J Consult Clin Psychol1985; 53: 905–12.
7.
7. Elder JP, McGraw SA, Rodrigues A, et al. Evaluation of two community wide smoking cessation contests. Prev Med1987; 16: 221–34.
8.
8. Altman DG, Flora JA, Fortmann SP, Farquhar JW. The cost-effectiveness of three smoking cessation programs. Am J Public Health1987; 77: 162–5.
9.
9. Wallack L, Sciandra R. Media advocacy and public education in the Community Intervention Trial to reduce heavy smoking (COMMIT). Int'I. Quarterly of Community Health Education1990–91; 11 (3): 205–222.
10.
10. Korhonen HJ, Niemensivu H, Piha T, et al. National TV smoking cessation program and contest in Finland. Prev Med1992; 21: 74–87.
11.
11. Health Education Authority. Quit and Win 1990 UK. Evaluation summary. London: HEA, 1991.
12.
12. Tillgren P, Haglund BJA, Gilljam H, Holm L-E. A tobacco quit and win model in the Stockholm Cancer Prevention Programme. European Journal of Cancer Prevention1992; 1: 361–6.
13.
13. Roberts C, Smith C, Catford J. Quit and Win Wales: an evaluation of the 1990 pilot contest. Tobacco Control1993; 2: 114–9.
14.
14. Center for health Promotion. Quit & Win. A Smoking Cessation Campaign that Works. South Carolina: Department of Health and Environment Control, DHEC, November 1990.
15.
15. Mittelmark MB, Hunt MK, Heath GW, Schmid TL. Realistic outcomes: Lessons from community-based research and demonstration program for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. J Public Health Policy1993; 14: 437–62.
16.
16. Tillgren P. Community organization strategy as a method to decrease tobacco use. Experience from the Stockholm Cancer Prevention Program. Sundbyberg: Karolinska Institute, Department of Social Medicine, Master of Public Health Thesis (Golden report no. 268), 1992.
17.
17. Nordgren P, Ramström L. Moist snuff in Sweden — tradition and evolution. Br J Addict1990; 85: 1107–12.
18.
18. Tillgren P, Kanström L, Haglund BJA, Holm L-E. Community analysis in the planning and implementation of the Stockholm Cancer Prevention. Health Promotion Int1992; 7: 89–97.
19.
19. Ainetdin T, Gilljam H, Haglund BJA, Holm L-E, Tillgren P. Smokefree Environment and Reduced Tobacco Consumption in Stockholm County and Sweden 1988. Sundbyberg: The Stockholm County Councils' Public Health Publication series, Kronan Health Centre, 1991 (Green Report No. 182) [in Swedish].
20.
20. Andersson LG, Eriksson R, Wärneryd B. Att beskriva den sociala strukturen. Utvärdering av 1974 års förslag till socioekonomisk indelning (A memo on the 1974 socio-economic classification). Statistisk tidskrift1981; 2: 113–36 [in Swedish].
21.
21. SAS Institute Inc. SAS User's Guide: Statistics Version, 6th Edition, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1985.
22.
22. Schwartz JL. Review and evaluation of smoking cessation methods: The United States and Canada, 1978–1985. Washington D.C.: National Cancer Institute, 1987; NIH Publication No. 87–2940.
23.
23. Dignan MB. Measurement and evaluation of health education. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1989 (second edition).
24.
24. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health benefits of smoking cessation. A report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 90–8416, 1990.
25.
25. Patric DL, Cheadle A, Thompson DC, Dier P, Koepsell T, Kinne S. The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health1994; 84: 1086–1093.
26.
26. Sloan R, Dimberg L, Welkoowitz LA, Kristiansen MA. Cessation and relapse in a year-long workplace quit-smoking contest. Prev Med1990; 19: 414–23.
27.
27. Freund KM, Agostino RBD, Belanger AJ, Kannel WB, Stokes J. Predictors of smoking cessation: The Framingham study. Am J Epidemiol1992; 135: 957–64.
28.
28. Lichtenstein E, Glassgow RE. Long-term effects of behavioural smoking cessation. Behavior Therapy1987; 18: 297–324.
30. DuNah RE, Holly EA, Ahn DK. Demographics and cigarette smoking among women. Prev Med1990; 20: 262–70.
31.
31. Coambs RB, Li S, Kozlowski LT. Age interacts with heaviness of smoking in predicting success in cessation of smoking. Am J Epidemiol1992; 132: 240–6.
32.
32. Fiore MC, Novotny T, Pierce JP, Giovino GA, Hatziandren EJ, Newcomb PA, Surawicy TS, Davis RM. Methods used to quit smoking in the United States. Do cessation programs help? JAMA1990; 263: 2760–5.
33.
33. Abrams DB, Biener L. Motivational characteristics of smokers at the workplace: A public health challenge. Prev Med1992; 21: 679–87.
34.
34. Boström G, Hallquist J, Haglund BJA, Romelsjö A, Svanström L, Diderichsen F. Socio-economic differences in smoking in an urban Swedish population. Scand J Soc Med1993; 21: 77–82.
35.
35. Criqui MH, Barret-Connor E, Austin M. Difference between respondents and non-respondents in a population-based cardiovascular disease study. Am J Epidemiol,1978; 108: 367–72.
36.
36. Oakes TW, Friedman GD, Seltzer CC. Mail survey response by health status of smokers, non-smokers, and ex-smokers. Am J Epidemiol1973: 98; 50–5.
37.
37. Prochaska JO, DiClemente, CC. Toward a comprehensive model of change. In: Miller WR, Heather H, eds. Treating addictive behaviours. New York: Plenum Press, 1986: 3–27.
38.
38. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Strategies to control tobacco use in the United States: A blueprint for public health action in the 1990's. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute. NIH Publication No. 92–3316, 1991.
39.
39. Perry CL. Conceptualizing community-wide youth health programs. In: Nutbeam D, Haglund B, Farely P, Tillgren P, eds. Youth Health Promotion. From theory to practice in school & community. London: Forbes Publication, 1991: 1–21.
41. Mermelstein R, Lichtenstein E, McIntyre K. Partner support and relapse in smoking cessation program. J Consult Clin Psychol1983; 51: 465–6.
42.
42. Hansson BS, Isacsson S-O, Janzon L, Lindell S-E. Social support and quitting smoking for good. Is there an association? — Results from the population study “Men born in 1914”, Malmö, Sweden. Addict Behav1990; 15: 221–233.
43.
43. Stretcher VJ, McEvoy DeVellis B, Becker MH, Rosenstock IM. The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behaviour change. Health Educ Q1986; 13 (1): 73–92.
44.
44. Rotter JB. Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1954.
45.
45. Lichtenstein E, Glasgow RE. Smoking cessation: What have we learned over the past decade?J Consult Clini Psychol1992: 60; 518–27.
46.
46. Hughes JR. Combined psychological and nicotine gum treatment for smoking: a critical review. J Substance Abuse1991; 3: 357–50.
47.
47. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smokeless tobacco or health. An international perspective. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute. NIH Publication No. 92–3461, 1993.
