Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Incentives for Smoking Treatment in Medicaid Members.

ABSTRACT: Low-income populations are especially likely to smoke and have difficulty quitting. This study evaluated a monetary incentive intended to increase smoking treatment engagement and abstinence among Medicaid recipients who smoke.Two-group randomized clinical trial of Incentive (n=948) and Control interventions (n=952) for smoking.Medicaid recipients recruited from primary care patients (n=920) and callers to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (n=980).Participants were offered five quitline cessation calls and were encouraged to obtain cessation medication (covered by Medicaid). All participants received payment for completing a baseline assessment and a 6-month smoking test. Only Incentive condition participants received compensation for taking counseling calls ($30 per call) and for biochemically verified abstinence at the 6-month visit ($40).Seven-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence 6-months post study entry and cost/quit.Incentive condition participants had significantly higher biochemically determined 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence rates 6 months after study induction than did Controls (21.6% vs 13.8%, respectively, p<0.0001). A positive treatment effect of incentives was present across other abstinence indices, but the size of effects and levels of abstinence varied considerably across indices. Incentive condition participants were also significantly more likely than non-incentivized Control participants to accept Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line treatment calls and their acceptance of calls mediated their attainment of higher abstinence rates at 6-month follow-up. The cost/quit/participant averaged $4,268.26 for the Control participants and $3,601.37 for the Incentive participants.This study shows that fairly moderate levels of incentive payments for treatment engagement and abstinence (a total possible payment of $190) increased very low-income smokers' engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment.This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02713594.

SUBMITTER: Fraser DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5978743 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Trial of Incentives for Smoking Treatment in Medicaid Members.

Fraser David L DL Fiore Michael C MC Kobinsky Kate K Adsit Robert R Smith Stevens S SS Johnson Mimi L ML Baker Timothy B TB

American journal of preventive medicine 20171102 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Low-income populations are especially likely to smoke and have difficulty quitting. This study evaluated a monetary incentive intended to increase smoking treatment engagement and abstinence among Medicaid recipients who smoke.<h4>Study design</h4>Two-group randomized clinical trial of Incentive (n=948) and Control interventions (n=952) for smoking.<h4>Setting/participants</h4>Medicaid recipients recruited from primary care patients (n=920) and callers to the Wisconsin Tobac ...[more]

PMID: 29079405

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSmoking rates among low-income individuals, including those eligible for Medicaid, have not shown the same decrease that is observed among high-income individuals. The rate of smoking among pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid is almost twice that among privately insured women, which leads to significant disparities in birth outcomes and a disproportionate cost burden placed on Medicaid. Several states have identified maternal smoking as a key target for improving birth outcomes and reducing health care expenditures; however, efficacious, cost-effective, and feasible cessation programs have been elusive.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a smartwatch-enabled, incentive-based smoking cessation program for Medicaid-eligible pregnant smokers.MethodsPilot 1 included a randomized pilot study of smartwatch-enabled remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring for 12 weeks. Those in the intervention group also received the SmokeBeat program. Pilot 2 included a randomized pilot study of pay-to-wear versus pay-to-quit for 4 weeks. Those in a pay-to-wear program could earn daily incentives for wearing the smartwatch, whereas those in pay-to-quit program could earn daily incentives if they wore the smartwatch and abstained from smoking. Pilot 3, similar to pilot 2, had higher incentives and a duration of 3 weeks.ResultsFor pilot 1 (N=27), self-reported cigarettes per week among the intervention group declined by 15.1 (SD 27) cigarettes over the study; a similar reduction was observed in the control group with a decrease of 17.2 (SD 19) cigarettes. For pilot 2 (N=8), self-reported cigarettes per week among the pay-to-wear group decreased by 43 cigarettes (SD 12.6); a similar reduction was seen in the pay-to-quit group, with an average of 31 (SD 45.6) fewer cigarettes smoked per week. For pilot 3 (N=4), one participant in the pay-to-quit group abstained from smoking for the full study duration and received full incentives.ConclusionsDecreases in smoking were observed in both the control and intervention groups during all pilots. The use of the SmokeBeat program did not significantly improve cessation. The SmokeBeat program, remote cotinine testing, and remote delivery of financial incentives were considered feasible and acceptable. Implementation challenges remain for providing evidence-based cessation incentives to low-income pregnant smokers. The feasibility and acceptability of the SmokeBeat program were moderately high. Moreover, the feasibility and acceptability of remote cotinine testing and the remotely delivered contingent financial incentives were successful.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03209557; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03209557.

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment for tobacco dependence is not available in many low-resource settings, especially in developing countries.PurposeTo test the impact of a novel mix of monetary and social incentives on smoking abstinence in rural communities of Thailand.DesignAn RCT of commitment contracts and team incentives for rural smokers to quit smoking. Smokers were not blinded to treatment status, although the assessor of the biochemical urine test was.Setting/participantsAll adult smokers living in the study area were eligible to participate; 215 adult smokers from 42 villages in Nakhon Nayok province, Thailand, participated. Fourteen smokers who lacked teammates were dropped.InterventionA total of 201 smokers were assigned to a two-person team, and then randomly assigned by team (in a 2:1 ratio) with computer-generated random numbers to receive smoking-cessation counseling (control group) or counseling plus offer of a commitment contract, team incentives, and text message reminders for smoking cessation at 3 months (intervention group).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day abstinence at 6 months, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes include study participation, biochemically verified abstinence at 3 months, self-reported abstinence at 14 months, and the incremental cost per quitter of the intervention, nicotine gum, and varenicline in Thailand. Data were collected in 2010-2011 and analyzed in 2012.ResultsThe trial enrolled 215 (10.5%) of 2055 smokers. The abstinence rate was 46.2% (61/132) in the intervention group and 14.5% (10/69) in the control group (adjusted OR 7.5 [3.0-18.6]) at 3 months; 44.3% (58/131) and 18.8% (13/69) at the primary end point of 6 months (adjusted OR 4.2 [1.8-9.7]); and 42.0% (55/131) and 24.6% (17/69) at 14 months (adjusted OR 2.2 [1.0-4.8]). The purchasing power parity-adjusted incremental cost per quitter from the intervention is $281 (95% CI=$187, $562), less than for nicotine gum ($1780, 95% CI=$1414, $2401) or varenicline ($2073, 95% CI=$1357, $4388) in Thailand.ConclusionsThe intervention enhanced abstinence by 91%-136% at 6 months, relative to the control group, although self-reports at 14 months suggest tapering of the treatment effect. The intervention may offer a viable, cost-effective alternative to current smoking-cessation approaches in low-resource settings.Trial registrationThis study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311115.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, but evidence-based smoking cessation therapy is underutilized. Financial incentive strategies represent an innovative approach for increasing the use of counseling and pharmacotherapy. If effective, they could supplement or supplant resource-intensive policy options, particularly in populations for whom smoking has substantial societal costs. FIESTA (Financial IncEntives for Smoking TreAtment) will randomize hospitalized smokers to receive usual smoking cessation care alone or usual smoking care augmented with financial incentives. We aim to compare the impact of these two strategies on 1) smoking abstinence, 2) use of counseling and nicotine replacement therapy, and 3) quality of life of participants. We also will evaluate the short-term and long-term return on the investment of incentives. The FIESTA Oral Microbiome Substudy will compare the oral microbiome of smokers and nonsmokers to longitudinally assess whether smoking cessation changes oral microbiome composition. METHODS:We will enroll 182 inpatient participants from the Manhattan campus of the Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System. All participants receive enhanced usual care, including screening for tobacco use, counseling while hospitalized, access to nicotine replacement therapy, and referral to a state Quitline. Patients in the financial incentive arm receive enhanced usual care and up to $550 for participating in the New York Smoker's Quitline, using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and achieving biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 2 months and 6 months. In the microbiome substudy, we enroll nonsmoking control participants matched to each recruited smoker's hospital ward, sex, age, diabetes status, and antibiotic use. After discharge, participants are asked to complete periodic phone interviews at 2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months and provide expired carbon monoxide and saliva samples at 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months for cotinine testing and oral microbiome analysis. DISCUSSION:The incentive interventions of FIESTA may benefit hospitalized smokers, an objective made all the more critical because smoking rates among hospitalized patients are higher than those in the general population. Moreover, the focus of FIESTA on evidence-based therapy and bioconfirmed smoking cessation can help guide policy efforts to reduce smoking-related healthcare costs in populations with high rates of tobacco use and costly illnesses. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02506829 . Registered on 1 July 2014.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Incentives for Smoking Treatment in Medicaid Members.

Publications

A Randomized Trial of Incentives for Smoking Treatment in Medicaid Members.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets