Dataset Information

Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation.

ABSTRACT: Financial incentives promote many health behaviors, but effective ways to deliver health incentives remain uncertain.We randomly assigned CVS Caremark employees and their relatives and friends to one of four incentive programs or to usual care for smoking cessation. Two of the incentive programs targeted individuals, and two targeted groups of six participants. One of the individual-oriented programs and one of the group-oriented programs entailed rewards of approximately $800 for smoking cessation; the others entailed refundable deposits of $150 plus $650 in reward payments for successful participants. Usual care included informational resources and free smoking-cessation aids.Overall, 2538 participants were enrolled. Of those assigned to reward-based programs, 90.0% accepted the assignment, as compared with 13.7% of those assigned to deposit-based programs (P<0.001). In intention-to-treat analyses, rates of sustained abstinence from smoking through 6 months were higher with each of the four incentive programs (range, 9.4 to 16.0%) than with usual care (6.0%) (P<0.05 for all comparisons); the superiority of reward-based programs was sustained through 12 months. Group-oriented and individual-oriented programs were associated with similar 6-month abstinence rates (13.7% and 12.1%, respectively; P=0.29). Reward-based programs were associated with higher abstinence rates than deposit-based programs (15.7% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001). However, in instrumental-variable analyses that accounted for differential acceptance, the rate of abstinence at 6 months was 13.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 22.8) higher in the deposit-based programs than in the reward-based programs among the estimated 13.7% of the participants who would accept participation in either type of program.Reward-based programs were much more commonly accepted than deposit-based programs, leading to higher rates of sustained abstinence from smoking. Group-oriented incentive programs were no more effective than individual-oriented programs. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and CVS Caremark; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526265.).

SUBMITTER: Halpern SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4471993 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation.

Halpern Scott D SD French Benjamin B Small Dylan S DS Saulsgiver Kathryn K Harhay Michael O MO Audrain-McGovern Janet J Loewenstein George G Brennan Troyen A TA Asch David A DA Volpp Kevin G KG

The New England journal of medicine 20150513 22

<h4>Background</h4>Financial incentives promote many health behaviors, but effective ways to deliver health incentives remain uncertain.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomly assigned CVS Caremark employees and their relatives and friends to one of four incentive programs or to usual care for smoking cessation. Two of the incentive programs targeted individuals, and two targeted groups of six participants. One of the individual-oriented programs and one of the group-oriented programs entailed rewards of ap ...[more]

PMID: 25970009

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFinancial incentive programs promote smoking cessation. However, the incentive amount which should be provided-and how this may interact with other program characteristics-is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of the design of incentive programs for smoking cessation on current smokers' perceptions of programs and willingness to enroll.MethodAn online discrete choice experiment was conducted amongst adult current smokers residing in the United Kingdom (N = 430). Hypothetical incentive programs were described using five attributes (incentive amount, incentive type, frequency of sessions, reward schedules, program location). Participants responded to a series of choice sets comprised of two hypothetical programs. For each set, participants selected their preferred program. They then specified whether they would enroll in their preferred program if it were available. Analyses also considered the effect of participant income on preferences.ResultsOverall, participants preferred higher amounts over lower amounts, cash over vouchers, healthcare settings over workplaces, and consistent amounts over an escalating schedule. One session per week was the most preferred session frequency. Willingness to enroll increased quadratically with the incentive amount, although this increase slowed for higher amounts. Although middle- and high-income smokers preferred slightly higher amounts (cf. low-income participants), enrollment choices did not differ by income.ConclusionThe characteristics of incentive programs influence smokers' perceptions of programs and willingness to enroll. Higher amounts may encourage greater enrollment rates, but there will likely be a ceiling point beyond which increasing the incentive amount does not meaningfully increase enrollments.ImplicationsThere is increasing evidence incentive programs aid smoking cessation. Yet, the variety in previous program designs means how to best structure programs, including optimal incentive amount and the impact of the design on potential enrollment rates, remains unclear. This study suggests enrollments may be highest when incentive amounts are higher, rewards of a consistent amount in cash are provided, and sessions occur once per week in a healthcare setting. Although higher-income participants may desire higher incentive amounts compared to lower-income participants, this may not translate into differences in willingness to enroll.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare several monetary incentive programmes for promoting smoking abstinence among employees who smoke at workplaces in a middle income country.DesignParallel group, open label, assessor blinded, cluster randomized controlled trial.SettingLarge industrial workplaces in metropolitan Bangkok, Thailand.ParticipantsEmployees who smoked cigarettes and planned to quit within six months recruited from 101 worksite clusters (84 different companies).InterventionsWorksites were digitally cluster randomized by an independent investigator to usual care or usual care plus one of eight types of incentive programmes. Usual care consisted of one time group counseling and cessation support through a 28 day text messaging programme. The incentive programmes depended on abstinence at three months and varied on three intervention components: refundable deposits, assignment to a teammate, and bonus size ($20 (£15; €17) or $40).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was biochemically verified seven day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were programme acceptance at enrollment and smoking abstinence at three months (end of intervention) and at six months. All randomized participants who had complete baseline information were included in intention-to-treat analyses; participants with missing outcomes were coded as continuing smokers.ResultsBetween April 2015 and August 2016, the trial enrolled 4190 participants. Eighteen were omitted because of missing baseline covariates and death before the primary endpoint, therefore 4172 participants were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Programme acceptance was relatively high across all groups: 58.7% (2451/4172) overall and 61.3% (271/442) in the usual care group. Abstinence rates at 12 months did not differ among deposit programmes (336/2253, 14.9%) and non-deposit programmes (280/1919, 14.6%; adjusted difference 0.8 points, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 4.3, P=0.65), but were somewhat lower for team based programmes (176/1348, 13.1%) than individual based programmes (440/2824, 15.6%; -3.2 points, -6.6 to -0.2, P=0.07), and higher for $40 bonus programmes (322/1954, 16.5%) than programmes with no bonus (148/1198, 12.4%; 5.9 points, 2.1 to 9.7, P=0.002). The $40 individual bonus was the most efficacious randomization group at all endpoints. Intervention components did not strongly interact with each other.ConclusionsAcceptance of monetary incentive programmes for promoting smoking abstinence was high across all groups. The $40 individual bonus programmes increased long term smoking abstinence compared with usual care, although several other incentive designs did not, such as team based programmes and deposit programmes. Incentive design in workplace wellness programmes might influence their effectiveness at reducing smoking rates in low resource settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02421224).

Project description:ImportanceSocioeconomically disadvantaged individuals (ie, those with low socioeconomic status [SES]) have difficulty quitting smoking and may benefit from incentive-based cessation interventions.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of incentivizing smoking abstinence on smoking cessation among adults with low SES.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used a 2-group randomized clinical trial design. Data collection occurred between January 30, 2017, and February 7, 2022. Participants included adults with low SES who were willing to undergo smoking cessation treatment. Data were analyzed from April 18, 2023, to April 19, 2024.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to usual care (UC) for smoking cessation (counseling plus pharmacotherapy) or UC plus abstinence-contingent financial incentives (UC plus FI).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 26 weeks after the quit date. Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 7-day PPA at earlier follow-ups, 30-day PPA at 12 and 26 weeks, repeated 7-day PPA, and continuous abstinence. Multiple approaches were employed to handle missing outcomes at follow-up, including categorizing missing data as smoking (primary), complete case analysis, and multiple imputation.ResultsThe 320 participants had a mean (SD) age of 48.9 (11.6) and were predominantly female (202 [63.1%]); 82 (25.6%) were Black, 15 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 200 (62.5%) were White; and 146 (45.6%) participated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 161 were randomized to UC and 159 were randomized to UC plus FI. After covariate adjustment with missing data treated as smoking, assignment to UC plus FI was associated with a greater likelihood of 7-day PPA at the 4-week (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.11 [95% CI, 1.81-5.34]), 8-week (AOR, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.62-5.31]), and 12-week (AOR, 3.18 [95% CI, 1.70-5.95]) follow-ups, but not at the 26-week follow-up (22 [13.8%] vs 14 [8.7%] abstinent; AOR, 1.79 [95% CI, 0.85-3.80]). However, the association of group assignment with smoking cessation reached statistical significance at all follow-ups, including 26 weeks, with multiple imputation (37.37 [23.5%] in the UC plus FI group vs 19.48 [12.1%] in the UC group were abstinent; AOR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.14-4.63]). Repeated-measures analyses indicated that participants in the UC plus FI group were significantly more likely to achieve PPA across assessments through 26 weeks with all missing data estimation methods. Other secondary cessation outcomes also showed comparable patterns across estimation methods. Participants earned a mean (SD) of $72 ($90) (of $250 possible) in abstinence-contingent incentives. Participation during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the likelihood of cessation across assessments.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, incentivizing smoking cessation did not increase cessation at 26 weeks when missing data were treated as smoking; however, the UC plus FI group had greater odds of quitting at follow-ups through 12 weeks. Cessation rates were higher for the UC plus FI group at all follow-ups through 26 weeks when multiple imputation was used to estimate missing outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02737566.

Project description:IntroductionPoor retention in clinical trials can impact on statistical power, reliability, validity and generalisability of findings and is a particular challenge in smoking cessation studies. In online trials with automated follow up mechanisms, poor response also increases resource-need for manual follow up. This study compared two financial incentives on response rates at 6 months follow up, in an online, automated smoking cessation feasibility trial of a cessation smartphone app (Quit Sense).MethodsA study within a trial (SWAT), embedded within a host randomised controlled trial. Host trial participants were randomised 1:1 to receive either a £10 or £20 voucher incentive, for completing the 6-month questionnaire. Stratification for randomisation to the SWAT was by minimisation to ensure an even split of host trial arm participants, and by 6-week response rate. Outcome measures were: questionnaire completion rate, time to completion, number of completers requiring manual follow up and completeness of responses.Results204 participants were randomised to the SWAT. The £20 and £10 incentives did not differ in completion rate at 6 months (79% versus 74%; p=0.362) but did reduce the proportion of participants requiring manual follow up (46% versus 62%; p=0.018) and the median completion time (7 days versus 15 days; p=0.008). Measure response completeness rates were higher among £20 incentive participants, though differences were small for the host trial's primary smoking outcome.ConclusionsBenefits to using relatively modest increases in incentive for online smoking cessation trials include more rapid completion of follow up questionnaires and reduced manual follow up.ImplicationsA modest increase in incentive (from £10 to £20) to promote the completion of follow up questionnaires in online smoking cessation trials may not increase overall response rates but could lead to more rapid data collection, a reduced need for manual follow-up and reduced missing data among those who initiate completing a questionnaire. Such an improvement may help to reduce bias, increase validity and generalisability, and improve statistical power in smoking cessation trials.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral states have implemented Healthy Behavior Incentive Programs (HBIPs) in Medicaid through Section 1115 demonstration waivers. These programs use financial incentives to encourage positive behavior changes, such as greater use of preventive services, smoking cessation, and weight loss.ObjectiveTo test for an association between the introduction of HBIPs and the rates of smoking cessation, weight loss, and annual preventive health visits in states that have adopted behavior-specific programs compared with states that have not.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study using a difference-in-differences analysis of the 2011-2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey Interview Results data, adjusting for demographic conditions, state unemployment rates, state Medicaid expansion, national secular trends, and time invariant state-specific factors, was conducted. Two sets of participants were considered: adults aged 18 to 64 years who had a reported annual household income of less than $25 000 (n = 442 089) or adults aged 18 to 64 years who had completed high school education or less (n = 676 883).ExposuresChanges in health behavior outcomes in 4 states (Florida, Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan) that implemented behavior-specific HBIPs targeting smoking, obesity, and annual health checkups through a Section 1115 waiver, against changes in control states, including Washington, DC, that did not introduce an HBIP (n = 44).Main outcomes and measuresRate of smoking, obesity, and attendance at annual preventive health visits.ResultsOf Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Service respondents used for the less than $25 000 annual household income cohort (n = 442 089), the mean (SD) age was 43.1 (0.8) years, and the mean (SD) percentage of women was 58.4% (2.5%). For the cohort of high school education or less (n = 676 883) population, the mean (SD) age was 41.6 (1.1) years, and the mean (SD) percentage of women was 46.6% (0.9%). During a 2-year period after implementation, there were no improvements in smoking and obesity in individuals with a household income of less than $25 000 (2.49 percentage points, 95% CI, 1.75-3.23 percentage points; P < .001 and -1.94 percentage points, 95% CI, -4.42 to 0.55 percentage points; P = .12, respectively) as well as in the population holding a high school education or less (1.74 percentage points, 95% CI, 0.64-2.85 percentage points; P = .003 and -0.73 percentage points, 95% CI, -1.84 to 0.38 percentage points; P = .19). An association was noted between an increase in preventive health visit rates among states adopting behavior-specific HBIPs relative to control states in the less than $25 000 household income population (3.89 percentage points, 95% CI, 2.64-5.14 percentage points; P < .001). However, these associations were substantively small and not robust across the high school education or less population (1.8 percentage points, 95% CI, -0.12 to 3.71 percentage points; P = .07).Conclusions and relevanceEarly postimplementation assessment may indicate that HBIPs were not associated with substantive improvements in incentivized healthy behaviors among populations likely to be Medicaid beneficiaries. The value, format, and timing of the incentive, complexity in delivery, and lack of awareness of incentives among target beneficiaries and clinicians may limit the usefulness of programs even over a longer follow-up period.

Dataset Information

Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation.

Publications

Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets