International Quit and Win 1996: comparative evaluation study in China andFinland

Citation
S. Sun et al., International Quit and Win 1996: comparative evaluation study in China andFinland, TOB CONTROL, 9(3), 2000, pp. 303-309
Citations number
19
Categorie Soggetti
Public Health & Health Care Science","Envirnomentale Medicine & Public Health
Journal title
TOBACCO CONTROL
ISSN journal
09644563 → ACNP
Volume
9
Issue
3
Year of publication
2000
Pages
303 - 309
Database
ISI
SICI code
0964-4563(200009)9:3<303:IQAW1C>2.0.ZU;2-Q
Abstract
Objectives-To compare background and process variables, as well as follow u p status, of the participants in the International Quit and Win '96 contest s of China and Finland, and analyse factors contributing to sustained maint enance. Design-A standardised 12 month follow up was conducted in both countries wi th random samples of participants. The sample sizes were 3119 in China and 1448 in Finland, with response rates of 91.2% and 65.2%, respectively. Interventions-The International Quit and Win '96 contest was the second coo rdinated, multinational smoking cessation campaign targeted at adult daily smokers. Altogether 25 countries participated, including China with 15 000 and Finland with 6000 smokers registered. Main outcome measures-Conservative (considering all non-respondents relapse d) and non-conservative (based on respondents only) estimates were calculat ed for one month abstinence, 12 month continuous abstinence, and point abst inence at the time point of follow up. Results-Great differences were found in the background and process variable s, as well as in the outcome measures. At one year follow up, the conservat ive continuous abstinence rates show that the Chinese participants maintain ed their abstinence better (38%) compared to the Finnish ones (12%). In Chi na women reached higher abstinence rate (50%) than men (36%), whereas in Fi nland men achieved a better result (14%) than women (9%). Conclusions-The Quit and Win contest is a mass smoking cessation method fea sible in countries showing great variance in smoking habits and rates. Howe ver, in countries with different stages of antismoking development, such as China and Finland, different practical implementation strategies may be ne eded.