Dataset Information

Financial incentives to promote extended smoking abstinence in opioid-maintained patients: a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: Prior studies by our group demonstrated the efficacy of a brief but intensive behavioral intervention for producing initial smoking abstinence among opioid-dependent patients. In the present study, our aim was to promote longer-duration abstinence in this population. Following an initial 2-week incentive intervention for smoking abstinence, we examined whether a 10-week maintenance arm involving continuation of contingent reinforcement will produce greater smoking abstinence than a similar duration of noncontingent reinforcement.Randomized, 12-week, parallel-group study.Out-patient research clinic in Burlington, Vermont, USA.Opioid-maintained smokers (n = 88) who provided breath carbon monoxide and urinary cotinine specimens and received contingent reinforcement for smoking abstinence during weeks 1-2 (phase 1), with 63 randomized on day 14 to an extended contingent (EC; n = 31) or extended noncontingent (EN; n = 32) experimental condition for weeks 3-12 (phase 2).The EC condition consisted of voucher values that escalated across consecutive negative samples until they reached $30, after which they remained at $30 per negative sample. A positive or a missing sample resulted in no vouchers for that day and reset the value of the next negative same to $9. Two consecutive negatives returned the schedule to the pre-reset value. The EN control condition consisted of vouchers delivered for providing scheduled samples, but independent of smoking status.The primary outcome was percentage of biochemically abstinent samples during phase 2. Secondary measures included abstinence status at final study visit, complete abstinence, participants' longest duration of continuous abstinence, cotinine and carbon monoxide (CO) levels and self-reported cigarettes per day.EC participants achieved greater smoking abstinence during phase 2 than EN participants [46.7 versus 23.5% negative samples, respectively; odds ratio (OR) = 2.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.16-7.65, ?(2) 1 (=) 5.0, P = 0.02]. When longest duration of continuous abstinence was compared between experimental groups, EC participants achieved twice the mean duration of continuous abstinence compared with EN participants (3.31 versus 1.68 weeks; t61 = 1.83, P = 0.07). An effect of experimental condition was also seen on mean cotinine levels (42.5 versus 210.6 ng/ml, respectively; F1,61 =5.9, P = 0.02).Among opioid-maintained smokers receiving an initial period of daily contingent incentives, a contingent reinforcement intervention appears to be more effective at extending smoking abstinence than noncontingent reinforcement over 10 weeks.

SUBMITTER: Sigmon SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4826799 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Financial incentives to promote extended smoking abstinence in opioid-maintained patients: a randomized trial.

Sigmon Stacey C SC Miller Mollie E ME Meyer Andrew C AC Saulsgiver Kathryn K Badger Gary J GJ Heil Sarah H SH Higgins Stephen T ST

Addiction (Abingdon, England) 20160123 5

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Prior studies by our group demonstrated the efficacy of a brief but intensive behavioral intervention for producing initial smoking abstinence among opioid-dependent patients. In the present study, our aim was to promote longer-duration abstinence in this population. Following an initial 2-week incentive intervention for smoking abstinence, we examined whether a 10-week maintenance arm involving continuation of contingent reinforcement will produce greater smoking abs ...[more]

PMID: 26638126

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction:Three-quarters of homeless people smoke cigarettes. Financial incentives for smoking abstinence have appeared promising in nonexperimental studies of homeless smokers, but randomized controlled trial (RCT) data are lacking. Methods:We conducted a pilot RCT of financial incentives for homeless smokers. Incentive arm participants (N = 25) could earn escalating $15-$35 rewards for brief smoking abstinence (exhaled carbon monoxide <8 parts per million) assessed 14 times over 8 weeks. Control arm participants (N = 25) were given $10 at each assessment regardless of abstinence. All participants were offered nicotine patches and counseling. The primary outcome was a repeated measure of brief smoking abstinence across 14 assessments. The secondary outcome was brief abstinence at 8 weeks. Exploratory outcomes were self-reported 1-day and 7-day abstinence from (1) any cigarette and (2) any puff of a cigarette. Other outcomes included 24-hour quit attempts, nicotine patch use, counseling attendance, and changes in alcohol and drug use. Results:Compared to control, incentive arm participants were more likely to achieve brief abstinence overall (odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 2.89 to 18.3) and at 8 weeks (48% vs. 8%, p = .004). Similar effects were seen for 1-day abstinence, but 7-day puff abstinence was negligible in both arms. Incentive arm participants made more quit attempts (p = .03). Nicotine patch use and counseling attendance were not significantly different between the groups. Alcohol and drug use did not change significantly in either group. Conclusions:Among homeless smokers, financial incentives increased brief smoking abstinence and quit attempts without worsening substance use. This approach merits further development focused on promoting sustained abstinence. Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02565381). Implications:Smoking is common among homeless people, and conventional tobacco treatment strategies have yielded modest results in this population. This pilot RCT suggests that financial incentives may be a safe way to promote brief smoking abstinence and quit attempts in this vulnerable group of smokers. However, further development is necessary to translate this approach into real-world settings and to promote sustained periods of smoking abstinence.

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:American Indians (AI) have high prevalence of diabetes in youth and may benefit from increasing physical activity as a strategy to improve metabolic health. We tested whether financial incentives would elicit greater frequency and/or duration of exercise in AI youth at high risk for developing diabetes. Overweight/obese AI boys and girls, 11-20 years old, were instructed to exercise on 3 days/week for 48 weeks at a tribal wellness center. The program was divided into three, 16-week-long phases to test different financial incentive strategies. Within each phase participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups that received different payments for exercise. Phase 1 was designed to test whether the size of the incentive would affect exercise frequency. In Phase 1, the number of exercise sessions did not differ between the group receiving a modest fixed-value payment per exercise session and the group receiving enhanced incentives to exercise more frequently (26 ± 3 versus 28 ± 2 sessions, respectively, p = 0.568). In Phase 2, the provision of an enhanced financial incentive to increase exercise duration resulted longer sessions, as the incentivized and standard payment groups exercised 38 ± 2 versus 29 ± 1 minutes per session (p = 0.002), respectively. In Phase 3, the effect of reducing the incentives on maintenance of exercise behaviors was inconclusive due to high participant withdrawal. Aerobic fitness increased 10% during Phase 1 but was unchanged thereafter. Insulin sensitivity and body composition were unchanged during the study. In conclusion, enhanced financial incentives increased the duration of exercise sessions, but had minimal effects on exercise participation. These results indicate that financial incentives hold promise in motivating previously sedentary, overweight/obese adolescents to exercise longer, but motivating them to sustain an exercise program remains the major challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01848353.

Project description:Cigarette smoking during pregnancy increases risk for pregnancy complications, growth restriction, and other adverse health outcomes. The most effective intervention for reducing smoking during pregnancy is financial incentives contingent on biochemically-verified smoking abstinence. The present study examined the efficacy of a smartphone-based intervention whereby smoking monitoring and incentive delivery occurred remotely using a mobile app. If efficacious, this remote intervention would allow pregnant women residing in geographically remote areas to benefit from incentives-based cessation interventions. Sixty U.S. pregnant smokers were recruited between May 2018 to May 2019 via obstetrical clinics, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) offices, and Facebook. Participants were assigned sequentially to one of two treatments: best practices alone (N = 30) or best practices plus financial incentives (N = 30). Outcomes were analyzed using repeated measures analysis based on generalized estimating equations (GEE). Seven-day point prevalence abstinence rates were greater in the incentives versus best practices arms early- (46.7% vs 20.0%, OR = 3.50, 95%CI = 1.11,11.02) and late-antepartum (36.7% vs 13.3%, OR = 3.76, 95%CI = 1.04,13.65), and four- (36.7% vs 10.0%, OR = 5.21, 95%CI = 1.28,21.24) and eight-weeks postpartum (40.0% vs 6.7%, OR = 9.33, 95%CI = 1.87,46.68), although not at the 12- (23.3% vs 10.0%, OR = 2.74, 95%CI = 0.63,11.82) or 24-week (20.0% vs 6.7%, OR = 3.50, 95%CI = 0.65,18.98) postpartum assessments likely due to this pilot study being underpowered for discerning differences at the later assessments, especially 24-weeks postpartum which was three months after treatment completion. These results support the efficacy of this remote, incentives-based intervention for pregnant smokers. Further research evaluating its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a well-powered, randomized controlled trial appears warranted.

Dataset Information

Financial incentives to promote extended smoking abstinence in opioid-maintained patients: a randomized trial.

Publications

Financial incentives to promote extended smoking abstinence in opioid-maintained patients: a randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets