Do quit-smoking competitions help people stop smoking?

01

First read how the prize is allocated

A team can compete against other teams, a verified quitter can gain entry to a draw, or a participant can receive a promised reward after meeting conditions. These rules create different comparisons. The table distinguishes them; evidence about guaranteed incentives cannot simply be transferred to a raffle because both involve money.

The newer trial used a ‘regret lottery’: everyone was in the draw, but a selected person received the prize only if the smoking condition was met. Someone selected but ineligible was told about the forgone prize. That is a description of a studied design—not advice to use shame, stage a home contest or withhold professional support.

[1][2]

02

The older review and newer trial answer narrower questions

Cochrane's 2019 review searched to June 2018: 20 studies, including 14 randomized trials, assessed smoking outcomes at least six months after intervention began. Workplace team competitions showed no clear long-term advantage, and the pooled lottery-eligibility trials did not establish a benefit. Three nonrandomized community Quit & Win studies favoured contestants over comparison populations, but baseline differences and limited reach weakened causal conclusions. Overall certainty was very low: not proof that competitions cannot help.

A December 2025 Dutch cluster trial included 111 participants in 13 organizations. Both arms received the same group training; one added repeated lotteries. At 13 and 26 weeks, its verified abstinence results were favourable. At the primary 52-week endpoint, the proportions were 43.2% versus 23.9%, but the adjusted estimate had a wide interval including no advantage. The Russell outcome allowed limited lapse smoking, rather than strict zero-cigarette abstinence. The small, mostly higher-educated sample, unequal verification responses and the limits of CO leave uncertainty; missing or discrepant responses counted as smoking. This distinct design updates the evidence, not all contests or individual odds.

[1][2]

03

A contestant percentage is not a community effect

Consider a fictional town with 500 smokers: 50 enter and 10 meet the stated follow-up outcome. That is 20% of entrants and 2% of the town's smokers. Neither percentage tells us how many stopped because of the contest; some might have stopped without it, and entrants may differ from non-entrants. A prize winner's testimonial answers neither question.

Ask whether published results include all entrants or only respondents, verify smoking outcomes, and follow people beyond the prize period. The older review's low estimated community impact belongs to those historical studies—not a universal ceiling for any future event. Joining a contest, meeting an outcome and being selected for a prize remain separate events.

[1][2]

04

Check the conditions without handing over health records here

Before deciding whether to enter an event, read its current dates, eligibility, fees, prize-selection rules, outcome verification, data recipients and publicity consent. Ask whether participation is voluntary and support remains available without winning or completing the contest. These are practical checks, not a finding that an event is lawful, fair or clinically effective. This page neither enrolls participants nor collects smoking status, test values or records.

NHS Better Health lists local Stop Smoking Services in England. Check access and service scope independently of an event; the listing does not certify a contest. A missed prize or an unmet outcome is not a moral ranking. Individual treatment decisions belong with qualified help, not contest rules.

[1][2][3]

05

What to keep in mind

• Read the allocation rule before importing incentive evidence.
• Keep shorter-term positive and uncertain later results together.
• Reach and contestant outcomes are different denominators.