Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jason, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Stockton, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jason, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Stockton, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, 129-138, 1997
© 1997 Oxford University Press

research-article

A worksite smoking intervention: a 2 year assessment of groups, incentives and self-help

Leonard A. Jason, Doreen Salina1, Susan D. McMahon, Donald Hedeker2 and Mary Stockton

Department of Psychology, De Paul University 2219 N. Kenmore Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614–3504
1Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Chicago, IL 60611
2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL 60612, USA

Sixty-three companies in the Chicago area were recruited to participate in a worksite smoking cessation program. Participants in each worksite received a television program and newspaper supplement (part of a community-wide media campaign), and one of three conditions: (1) self-help manuals alone (M), (2) self-help manuals and incentives for 6 months (IM) or (3) maintenance manuals, incentives and cognitive-behavioral support groups for 6 months (GEM). Results at the 2 year assessment are examined using a random-effects regression model. In addition, various definitions of quit-rate commonly used in smoking cessation research are explored and the advantages of using a public health approach in the worksite are examined.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
G Smedslund, K J Fisher, S M Boles, and E Lichtenstein
The effectiveness of workplace smoking cessation programmes: a meta-analysis of recent studies
Tob. Control, June 1, 2004; 13(2): 197 - 204.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ BehavHome page
S. S. Bull, C. Gillette, R. E. Glasgow, and P. Estabrooks
Work Site Health Promotion Research: To what Extent can we Generalize the Results and what is Needed to Translate Research to Practice?
Health Educ Behav, October 1, 2003; 30(5): 537 - 549.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav ModifHome page
S. D. Mcmahon and L. A. Jason
Social Support in a Worksite Smoking Intervention: A Test of Theoretical Models
Behav Modif, April 1, 2000; 24(2): 184 - 201.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.