Although smoking prevalence is decreasing in Hong Kong, there are still 641,300 daily smokers (10.5%; Census and Statistics Department, 2015) and half will be killed by smoking (Lam, 2012) which accounts for over 7,000 deaths per year (Lam, Ho, Hedley, Mak, & Peto, 2001). Smoking also accounts for a large amount of medical cost, long-term care and productivity loss of US$688 million (0.6% Hong Kong GDP) (Census & Statistics Department, 2001; McGhee et al., 2006) . Smoking is a highly addictive behavior and it is difficult for smokers with strong nicotine dependence to quit without assistance. On the other hand, reaching and helping the many smokers who have no intention to quit is a challenge, because they are unlikely to seek professional help from smoking cessation services.~The Quit and Win programme provides an opportunity to reach and encourage a large group of smokers to make quit attempt and maintain abstinence. The Quit and Win model posits that smokers participating in the contest will have higher motivation to quit with incentives and better social support (Cahill & Perera, 2011). Studies have found that such quitting contests or incentive programs appeared to reach a large number of smokers and demonstrated a significantly higher quit rate for the quit and win group than for the control group (Cahill & Perera, 2015).~Smoking cessation services in Hong Kong are under-used with most of the adult daily smokers (79.6%) who had never used smoking cessation services (Census and Statistics Department, 2015). Among these smokers, only 2.4% were willing to use the services. Our previous RCT in previous QTW Contest 2015 evaluated the effects of low-intensity active referral (LAR) vs. very brief general SC advice (VBA) on quitting. LAR included onsite AWARD counselling and collection of smokers' personal contact information for SC services providers to connect with the smokers. Findings at 3-month follow-up of this RCT suggested the LAR intervention resulted in significantly higher self-reported quit rate than VBA in the control group (18.7% vs 14.0%. P<0.001).~It is warranted to evaluate if a higher intensity active referral (HAR) and/or text messaging on encouraging SC services use can achieve even higher quit rate when compared with only VBA is given in the control group. Noted the use of text-messaging is the cheaper method than HAR. By using the same design of control group in QTW 2015, we can combine and compare the 2 years QTW intervention of HAR, LAR and text-messaging using network meta-analysis. This will contribute to finding out a more cost-effective way to increase the quit rate through using SC services.~Therefore, the present study will examine (1) the effectiveness of personalised active referral to smoking cessation (SC) services and text messaging on encouraging SC services (2) explore the use of CBPR model to build capacity and to engage community partners in taking on this important public health issue for sustainability in the community. In addition, process evaluation will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the recruitment activity and how it is linked with the overall program outcomes.
The present study will examine (1) the effectiveness of personalised active referral to smoking cessation (SC) services and text messaging on encouraging SC services (2) explore the use of CBPR model to build capacity and to engage community partners in taking on this important public health issue for sustainability in the community. In addition, process evaluation will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the recruitment activity and how it is linked with the overall program outcomes.