最有效的戒煙方法就是直接給錢

Providing free electronic cigarettes or other stop-smoking products to employees to get them to give up real cigarettes is less effective than the threat of taking away a cash reward for quitting, according to a new study that weighs the effectiveness of a variety of workplace incentive programs.

一項(xiàng)衡量了各種工作場(chǎng)所激勵(lì)計(jì)劃的有效性的新研究稱，與其為員工提供免費(fèi)電子香煙或其他戒煙產(chǎn)品讓他們戒煙，還不如采用現(xiàn)金獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)的方法更有效。

The findings, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question the claims by e-cigarette enthusiasts that the devices may be better than traditional quit aids at helping smokers to stop.

這項(xiàng)發(fā)表在《新英格蘭醫(yī)學(xué)雜志》上的研究結(jié)果，質(zhì)疑了電子煙愛好者關(guān)于電子煙可能比傳統(tǒng)戒煙方法更能幫助吸煙者戒煙的觀點(diǎn)。

"Do they help people stop smoking? The answer to that is clearly no," lead author Dr. Scott Halpern, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, said in atelephone interview.

費(fèi)城賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)佩雷爾曼醫(yī)學(xué)院的斯科特·哈爾伯恩博士在接受電話采訪時(shí)表示：“它們能幫助人們戒煙嗎?答案顯然是否定的。”

"We cannot detect any evidence that they are better than offering free conventional smoking cessation aids or just providing information."

“我們沒有任何證據(jù)表明電子煙比提供免費(fèi)的傳統(tǒng)戒煙指南或相關(guān)信息更好。”

The study is also significant because it may be the first to look at programs to get all smokingemployees to quit.

這項(xiàng)研究很重要，因?yàn)樗赡苁堑谝粋€(gè)考慮讓所有吸煙員工戒煙的項(xiàng)目。

The results show that if the motivation isn't there, neither are the positive results.

結(jié)果表明，如果動(dòng)機(jī)不存在，積極的結(jié)果也不存在。

Among 6,006 employees at 54 U.S.-based companies, the six-month smoking abstinencerates for all the strategies were less than 3 percent.

這項(xiàng)研究的對(duì)象是來(lái)自54家美國(guó)公司的6006名員工，這些公司嘗試過(guò)多種途徑讓員工戒煙，但六個(gè)月的戒煙率還是低于3%。

Some of these "engaged" participants were assigned to a group that only received information regarding the benefits of quitting and got access to a service that offered text messages designed to encourage them; in this group, less than 1 percent stayed off cigarettes for six months.

參與項(xiàng)目的一部分員工被分配到一個(gè)小組，他們只是被告知戒煙的好處，項(xiàng)目組也不斷地給他們發(fā)一些鼓勵(lì)的短信，最后這組人中只有不到1%的人在六個(gè)月內(nèi)戒了煙。

The "engaged" workers who also received free smoking cessation aids such as nicotinepatches, lozenges and gum, or one of the two FDA-approved stop-smoking drugs, had a quitrate of only 2.9 percent.

另外一部分參與該項(xiàng)目的員工，他們也獲得了免費(fèi)的戒煙輔助品，如尼古丁貼片、含片和口香糖，或者在兩種FDA批準(zhǔn)的戒煙藥物中選擇一種，但最終他們的戒煙率只有2.9%。

Free e-cigarettes, where the participant could pick their flavors, brought the rate up to 4.8 percent, but the difference compared to free patches and the like was not statistically meaningful.

第三組人員可以享受免費(fèi)的電子煙，參與者可以挑選口味，戒煙比例上升至4.8%，但是由于電子煙是免費(fèi)供應(yīng)，因此這種試驗(yàn)結(jié)果沒有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。

In the fourth group, whose participants got the free smoking cessation products plus a cash reward for staying away from tobacco -- $100 for the first month, an additional $200 at the three-month mark and $300 if they stayed smoke-free for six months -- 9.5 percent quit.

在第四組中的參與者則獲得了免費(fèi)戒煙產(chǎn)品，并給予他們戒煙的現(xiàn)金獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)--一個(gè)月不抽煙獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)100美元，3個(gè)月不抽額外增加200美元，如果他們連續(xù)6個(gè)月不抽煙，就再給他們300美元，這時(shí)戒煙率達(dá)到9.5%。

That was significantly better performance than workers getting the free cessation aids alone but not a statistically meaningful difference from the e-cigarette group.

這比單純的免費(fèi)戒煙者的表現(xiàn)要好得多，但與抽電子煙那組相比，這種顯著差異也沒有什么統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。

The employees who did the best got whatever cessation products they wanted plus $600 in an account with the threat that they would lose the money if they didn't stay smoke-free for six months.

戒煙最好的一組員工是采取了下面這種措施：首先給他們提供任何他們想要的戒煙產(chǎn)品，然后再在他們的賬戶上預(yù)存600美元，如果他們?cè)?個(gè)月以內(nèi)抽煙了，這筆錢就會(huì)被要回。

Their success rate was 12.7 percent, which was clearly better than those who got e-cigarettesor free cessation aids alone.

他們的成功率為12.7%，這明顯比那些只有電子煙或免費(fèi)戒煙的人好。

It reflects an odd psychological quirk about human behavior: "People are much more motivated to avoid losing $100 than they are to gain $100, even though, economically, theyare flip sides of the same coin," Halpern noted.

這反映了一種奇怪的關(guān)于人類行為的心理怪僻。哈爾伯恩博士稱：“相比起獲得100美元，人們?yōu)榱吮苊鈸p失100美元更有動(dòng)力，盡管經(jīng)濟(jì)從角度來(lái)看這只是一枚硬幣的兩面。”