Expanding Family Medicine Scholarship to All Faculty: The Minnesota Model for Harmonizing Clinical Care, Education, and Research Missions.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Minnesota engaged in a 5-year transformation to expand research and scholarship opportunities to all faculty. A harmonization framework was used to integrate the 3 missions of clinical care, education, and research to ensure that research and scholarship were an ongoing focus of the department. METHODS: The key elements of our transformation included as follows: (1) a general culture of inquiry, (2) harmonized leadership, (3) training and mentoring, and (4) infrastructure and resources. Components of each of these elements were intentionally instituted simultaneously and iteratively across the 5 years to provide robust and sustainable research and scholarship opportunities for all faculty. RESULTS: Outputs and outcomes of the harmonized transformation indicated that clinical and research faculty publications increased, and the percentage of clinical faculty trained in research and scholarship skills increased across the 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Important lessons learned during the harmonized transformation included the following: (1) key elements of the transformation need to be balanced as an ensemble, (2) cultural and organizational shifts take concerted effort and time, (3) embrace iteration: allow "bumps in the road" to propel the work forward, (4) transformation is financially feasible, (5) career research faculty can mutually benefit from clinical faculty engaging in scholarship, and (6) honor skepticism or disinterest and let people cultivate enthusiasm for research and scholarship rather than being forced.

Cost-effectiveness of enhancing a Quit-and-Win smoking cessation program for college students.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis and model-based cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis of increased dosage (3 vs. 1 consecutive contests) and enhanced content (supplemental smoking-cessation counseling) of the Quit-and-Win contest using data from a randomized control trial enrolling college students in the US. METHODS: For the cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses, we used a microsimulation model of the life course of current and former smokers to translate the distribution of the duration of continuous abstinence among each treatment arm's participants observed at the end of the trial (N = 1217) into expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs and an incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Missing observations in the trial were classified as smoking. For our reference case, we took a societal perspective and used a 3% discount rate for costs and benefits. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to account for model and trial-estimated parameter uncertainty. We also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (cost per additional intermediate cessation) using direct costs of the intervention and two trial-based estimates of intermediate cessation: (a) biochemically verified (BV) 6-month continuous abstinence and (b) BV 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months. RESULTS: Multiple contests resulted in a significantly higher BV 6-month continuous abstinence rate (RD 0.04), at a cost of $1275 per additional quit, and increased the duration of continuous abstinence among quitters. In the long run, multiple contests lead to an average gain of 0.03 QALYs and were cost saving. Incorporating parameter uncertainty into the analyses, the expected INMB was greater than $1000 for any realistic willingness to pay (WTP) for a QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming missing values were smoking, multiple contests appear to dominate a single contest from a societal perspective. Funding agencies seeking to promote population health by funding a Quit-and-Win contest in a university setting should strongly consider offering multiple consecutive contests. Further research is needed to evaluate multiple contests compared to no contest.

''Quit & Win'' Contests Among College Students: Predictors of Long-Term Smoking Abstinence.

PURPOSE: To determine smoking abstinence rates and predictors of abstinence among college students enrolled in a campus-based Quit & Win contest. DESIGN: Pre-post measure with no comparison group. SETTING: Contests conducted on seven college campuses in 2007. SUBJECTS: Subjects (N = 484) were 23.7 ± 6.8 years of age, 61% female, 16.3% nonwhite, and smoked 12.5 ± 7.8 cigarettes per day on 28.0 ± 4.8 days in the past month. INTERVENTION: Participants abstinent for the 30-day contest were eligible for a lottery-based prize. Assessments were completed at baseline, end of contest, and 6 months after enrollment. MEASURES: The 6-month survey assessed retrospective abstinence during the contest period and the prior 6 months and 7- and 30-day point prevalence abstinence at the time of the survey. ANALYSIS: Chi-square test was used to compare baseline characteristics among participants from 2-versus 4-year schools. Smoking abstinence was assessed by participant self-report. Both a simple imputation method (i.e., missing = smoking) and completers-only analyses were conducted. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine baseline predictors of abstinence. RESULTS: Thirty-day abstinence rate was 52.5% during the contest month and 20.5% at the 6-month follow-up. Baseline intention to stay quit (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, p = .01), cigarettes smoked per day (OR = .67, p = .04), and 2-year (vs. 4-year) college (OR = 1.65, p = .05) predicted abstinence at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Intention to stay quit even without winning a prize, a measure of intrinsic motivation, predicted both short- and long-term abstinence.

Enhancing Quit & Win contests to improve cessation among college smokers: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Quit & Win contests (in which smokers pledge to quit smoking for a defined period in exchange for the chance to win a prize) may be well-suited for college smokers. We tested the effectiveness of multiple versus single Quit & Win contests and that of added counseling versus no counseling in smoking cessation. DESIGN: A two-by-two, randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up. SETTING: Nineteen institutions in Minnesota, Texas, Ohio and Wisconsin. PARTICIPANTS: College student smokers (n = 1217) were randomized within site to four conditions: single (n = 306), multiple contests alone (n = 309), single contest plus counseling (n = 296) or multiple contests with counseling (n = 306). INTERVENTION: Participants in the standard contest condition (T1 and T2) were asked to abstain from all tobacco products for a 30-day period; those with confirmed abstinence were eligible for a lottery-based prize. Participants assigned to the multiple contest conditions (T3 and T4) participated in the 30-day contest and were enrolled automatically into two additional contest periods with an escalating prize structure. Participants randomized into the counseling conditions (T2 and T4) received up to six telephone-administered Motivation and Problem Solving (MAPS) counseling sessions over the 12-week treatment period. MEASURES: The primary outcome was biochemically verified 30-day point prevalence (PP) abstinence rate at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the same abstinence at end of treatment (4 months) and a proxy measure of 6-month verified continuous abstinence rate. Outcomes were based on all participants randomized. FINDINGS: We found no evidence of an interaction between number of contests and counseling. Abstinence rates for multiple (13.5%) and single (11.7%) contests were not significantly different at 6 months [odds ratio (OR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.84-1.66]. The addition of counseling did not improve 6-month abstinence significantly (13.7 versus 11.6%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.86-1.70). Multiple contests increased abstinence at 4 months (19.3 versus 10.3%, OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.50-2.91) and continuous abstinence at 6 months (7.8 versus 3.8%, OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.28-3.56). CONCLUSION: Multiple Quit & Win contests may increase smoking abstinence rates in college students more than single contests, but it is not clear whether adding counseling to these interventions produces any additional benefit.

Social contingencies and college quit and win contest: a qualitative inquiry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the social contingencies associated with participation in a college Quit and Win contest to promote smoking cessation. METHODS: Six focus groups (N = 27) were conducted with college students who participated in a Quit and Win research trial. RESULTS: Themes included: (1) participants reluctant to disclose quit decision; (2) perception of little support in their quit attempt, and (3) the social environment as a trigger for relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Although Quit and Win contests appear to motivate an initial quit attempt, the reluctance of smokers to disclose their quit attempt limits the potential positive impact of social support when utilizing this public service campaign.