SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports:
Researchers are still trying to figure out what could convince the estimated 40 million smokers in the U.S. to kick the habit for good.
[...] That was the subject of an innovative study that tracked a group of [employees of the CVS drug store chain] who were recruited to participate in an incentive-based cessation program. According to the researchers, who published their results in the New England Journal of Medicine this week, offering smokers varying financial rewards and penalties in exchange for cutting out cigarettes worked better than they expected.
Participants were recruited through CVS and randomly assigned to several different groups. They could choose whether or not they wanted to join their assigned group or drop out of the study.
The control group offered standard counseling with free smoking cessation tools, like nicorette gum. The other groups were divided between "deposit" and "reward" strategies. In the "deposit program", smokers were required to fork over $150. If they successfully quit, they got their deposit back as well as a $650 bonus; if they didn't quit, they lost their $150 for good. In the "reward program", meanwhile, smokers weren't required to make an initial deposit and simply received a $800 reward for quitting.
Smokers were significantly less likely to consent to participate in the deposit program; about 14 percent of people agreed to join it, compared to 90 percent of people who agreed to try for the $800 reward. However, the people who did agree to pay out the $150 deposit upfront were much more successful at quitting.
[...] More than 80 percent of smokers in the largest rewards-based group had not given up cigarettes by the end of the study.
(Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Saturday May 16 2015, @02:23AM
The headline says "Financial Rewards Effective in Smoking Cessation " but TFS says "More than 80 percent of smokers in the largest rewards-based group had not given up cigarettes by the end of the study" and "However, the people who did agree to pay out the $150 deposit upfront were much more successful at quitting," and even the (extremely brief) paper is talking about "loss aversion."
Looks like "Financial Penalties Effective in Smoking Cessation" is more accurate, no matter what Denis Leary said.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2015, @10:02AM
There is a disease amongst many researchers these days that makes them think if one group is different than another you can conclude something. An even worse habit is found by looking at the paper, we see it is filled with "adjusted percentages", etc based on whatever stats model they used. While I'm sure it is explained somewhere I am already dissuaded from putting more effort into this.
I don't see why they can't just present the data as part of the main findings, then present the predictions of their theory in a way that compares it to the data like normal scientists. So interesting idea for an experiment but poor analysis and interpretation of the data. They are good about limiting themselves in the summary but then fail in the text:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1414293 [nejm.org]
Nope, can't say that. Only that the adjusted data from the one group was different from the others. I really wish people would figure this out.