Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation in Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Financial incentives for smoking cessation and use of evidence-based therapy may increase quitting rates and reduce health and economic disparities.Methods
We randomized a low-income population of 182 hospitalized patients (mean age 58 years, 45% with high school education or less) to enhanced usual care, which included hospital-directed cessation care and Quitline referral or enhanced usual care plus financial incentives. All patients received enhanced usual care, while participants randomized to the financial incentives group were also eligible to receive up to $550 for participation in Quitline counseling ($50), participation in a community-based cessation program ($50), use of pharmacotherapy ($50), and biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 2 months ($150) and 6 months ($250). Primary outcome was biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 6 months after hospital discharge.Results
Total mean payment was $84 (standard deviation [SD] = $133) in the incentive group. The 6-month rate of biochemically confirmed smoking cessation was 19.6% in the incentive group and 8.9% in the enhanced usual care group (odds ratio [OR] 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 7.83, P = 0.10). Participants in the incentive group had higher rates of nicotine replacement therapy use (57.3% vs 31.3%, P = 0.002). Financial incentives did not improve subjective social status but did increase financial stress.Conclusions
Rates of bioconfirmed smoking cessation were higher among hospitalized patients randomized to financial incentives compared to usual care alone, but the difference was not significant. Considering the frequency of low payouts and the importance of assistance for successful quitting, future studies should explore the effectiveness of financial incentives sufficiently large to overcome barriers to evidence-based therapy.
SUBMITTER: Ladapo JA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7293955 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC11220567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of financial incentives dependent on continuous smoking abstinence on smoking cessation and birth outcomes among pregnant smokers.DesignSingle blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingFinancial Incentive for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy (FISCP) trial in 18 maternity wards in France.Participants460 pregnant smokers aged at least 18 years who smoked ≤5 cigarettes/day or ≤3 roll-your-own cigarettes/day and had a pregnancy gestation of <18 weeks were randomised to a financial incentives group (n=231) or a control group (n=229).InterventionsParticipants in the financial incentives group received a voucher equivalent to €20 (£17; $23), and further progressively increasing vouchers at each study visit if they remained abstinent. Participants in the control group received no financial incentive for abstinence. All participants received a €20 show-up fee at each of six visits.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was continuous smoking abstinence from the first post-quit date visit to visit 6, before delivery. Secondary outcomes in the mothers were point prevalence abstinence, time to smoking relapse, withdrawal symptoms, blood pressure, and alcohol and cannabis use in past 30 days. Secondary outcomes in the babies were gestational age at birth, birth characteristics (birth weight, length, head circumference, Apgar score), and a poor neonatal outcome-a composite measure of transfer to the neonatal unit, congenital malformation, convulsions, or perinatal death.ResultsMean age was 29 years. In the financial incentives and control groups, respectively, 137 (59%) and 148 (65%) were employed, 163 (71%) and 171 (75%) were in a relationship, and 41 (18%) and 31 (13%) were married. The participants had smoked a median of 60 cigarettes in the past seven days. The continuous abstinence rate was significantly higher in the financial incentives group (16%, 38/231) than control group (7%, 17/229): odds ratio 2.45 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 4.49), P=0.004). The point prevalence abstinence rate was higher (4.61, 1.41 to 15.01, P=0.011), the median time to relapse was longer (visit 5 (interquartile range 3-6) and visit 4 (3-6), P<0.001)), and craving for tobacco was lower (β=-1.81, 95% confidence interval -3.55 to -0.08, P=0.04) in the financial incentives group than control group. Financial incentives were associated with a 7% reduction in the risk of a poor neonatal outcome: 4 babies (2%) in the financial incentives group and 18 babies (9%) in the control group: mean difference 14 (95% confidence interval 5 to 23), P=0.003. Post hoc analyses suggested that more babies in the financial incentives group had birth weights ≥2500 g than in the control group: unadjusted odds ratio 1.95 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 3.85), P=0.055; sex adjusted odds ratio 2.05 (1.03 to 4.10), P=0.041; and sex and prematurity adjusted odds ratio 2.06 (0.90 to 4.71), P=0.086. As these are post hoc analyses, the results should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsFinancial incentives to reward smoking abstinence compared with no financial incentives were associated with an increased abstinence rate in pregnant smokers. Financial incentives dependent on smoking abstinence could be implemented as a safe and effective intervention to help pregnant smokers quit smoking.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02606227.
| S-EPMC8634365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe evaluate whether a combination of financial incentives and deposit contracts improves cessation rates among low- to moderate-income smokers.MethodsWe randomly assigned 311 smokers covered by Medicaid at 12 health clinics in Connecticut to usual care or one of the three treatment arms. Each treatment arm received financial incentives for two months and either (i) nothing further ("incentives only"), (ii) the option to start a deposit contract with incentive earnings after the incentives ended ("commitment"), or (iii) the option to precommit any earned incentives into a deposit contract starting after the incentives ended ("precommitment"). Smoking cessation was confirmed biochemically at two, six, and twelve months.ResultsAt two, six, and twelve months after baseline, our estimated treatment effects on cessation are positive but imprecise, with confidence intervals containing effect sizes estimated by prior studies of financial incentives alone and deposit contracts alone. At two months, the odds ratio for quitting was 1.4 in the incentive-only condition (95% CI: 0.5 to 3.5), 2.0 for incentives followed by commitment (95% CI: 0.6 to 6.1), and 1.9 for incentives and precommitment (95% CI: 0.7 to 5.3).ConclusionsA combined incentive and deposit contract program for Medicaid enrollees, with incentives offering up to $300 for smoking cessation and use of support services, produced a positive but imprecisely estimated effect on biochemically verified cessation relative to usual care and with no detectable difference in cessation rates between the different treatment arms.
| S-EPMC8279199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:While the proportion of adults who smoke cigarettes has declined substantially in the past decade, socioeconomic disparities in cigarette smoking remain. Few interventions have targeted low socioeconomic status (SES) and minority smokers in primary care settings. Objective:To evaluate a multicomponent intervention to promote smoking cessation among low-SES and minority smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants:For this prospective, unblinded, randomized clinical trial conducted between May 1, 2015, and September 4, 2017, adults 18 years and older who spoke English, smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day in the past week, were contemplating or preparing to quit smoking, and had a primary care clinician were recruited from general internal medicine and family medicine practices at 1 large safety-net hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Interventions:Patients were randomized to a control group that received an enhancement of usual care (n = 175 participants) or to an intervention group that received up to 4 hours of patient navigation delivered over 6 months in addition to usual care, as well as financial incentives for biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months following enrollment (n = 177 participants). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome determined a priori was biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 12 months. Results:Among 352 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 50.0 [11.0] years; 191 women [54.3%]; 197 participants who identified as non-Hispanic black [56.0%]; 40 participants who identified as Hispanic of any race [11.4%]), all were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months following enrollment, 21 participants [11.9%] in the navigation and incentives group, compared with 4 participants [2.3%] in the control group, had quit smoking (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.9-17.1; number needed to treat, 10.4; P < .001). In prespecified subgroup analyses, the intervention was particularly beneficial for older participants (19 [19.8%] vs 1 [1.0%]; P < .001), women (17 [16.8%] vs 2 [2.2%]; P < .001), participants with household yearly income of $20 000 or less (15 [15.5%] vs 3 [3.1%]; P = .003), and nonwhite participants (21 [15.2%] vs 4 [3.0%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study of adult daily smokers at 1 large urban safety-net hospital, patient navigation and financial incentives for smoking cessation significantly increased the rates of smoking cessation. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02351609.
| S-EPMC5820724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To test the effectiveness of financial incentives for smoking cessation in the Medicaid population. DATA SOURCES:Secondary data from the Medicaid Incentives for Prevention of Chronic Disease (MIPCD) program and Medicaid claims/encounter data from 2010 to 2015 for five states. STUDY DESIGN:Beneficiaries were randomized into receipt or no receipt of financial incentives. We ran multivariate regression models testing the impact of financial incentives on the use of counseling services, smoking behavior, and Medicaid expenditures and utilization. DATA EXTRACTION:Participating states provided Medicaid eligibility, claims and encounters, program enrollment, and incentivized service use data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Participants who received incentives were more likely to call the Quitline and complete counseling sessions. Incentive receipt was positively associated with self-reported quit attempts, self-reported quits, or passing cotinine tests of smoking cessation in most programs, although results were only statistically significant in a subset. There was no systematic evidence that incentives affected health care use or spending. CONCLUSIONS:Financial incentives are a promising policy lever to motivate behavioral change in the Medicaid population, but more evidence is needed regarding optimal incentive size, effectiveness of process-versus outcome-based incentives, targeting of incentives, and long-run cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC6232448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsPrior 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.DesignRandomized, 12-week, parallel-group study.SettingOut-patient research clinic in Burlington, Vermont, USA.ParticipantsOpioid-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).Intervention and controlThe 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.MeasurementsThe 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.FindingsEC 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, χ(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).ConclusionsAmong 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.
| S-EPMC4826799 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6376943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSmoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the USA. Low utilisation of treatments for smoking cessation remains a major barrier for reducing smoking rates. Financial incentives represent an innovative approach to increasing use of therapies for smoking cessation. This paper will describe the rationale and design of the Financial Incentives for Smoking Treatment II (FIESTA II) study, a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of goal-directed and outcome-based financial incentives to promote smoking cessation among hospitalised smokers.Methods and analysisWe are recruiting adult participants who smoked tobacco in the 30 days prior to initial interview and are contemplating quitting smoking. These participants will come from two hospitals in underserved communities in New York City and Los Angeles. They will be randomised into one of three arms. The first arm consists of goal-directed financial incentives plus enhanced usual care, which includes hospital-directed information about quitting smoking, nicotine replacement therapy and referral to a Quitline. The second arm involves outcome-based financial incentives plus enhanced usual care. The third arm consists of enhanced usual care alone. Multiple phone interviews with the participants will be completed after randomisation to assess smoking cessation. Participants will earn $20 for each follow-up interview completed and $30 for each smoking cessation test completed. Those who are randomised to the financial incentive groups can earn an additional $700. The participants in the outcome-based group will receive payments solely for exhibiting cessation, whereas the participants in the goal-based group are also eligible for receiving payments after meeting milestones such as speaking with a helpline coach.EthicsHuman research protection committees at New York University School of Medicine and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) David Geffen School of Medicine granted ethics approval.Protocol number: IRB#19-000 084.Trial registration numberNCT03979885.
| S-EPMC10546144 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Financial incentives offered to those who quit smoking have been found effective, also in persons with low socioeconomic status (SES), but no previous study has investigated who benefits most: smokers with low or high SES. In this community-randomized trial ("Richer without smoking"), three Danish municipalities were randomized to reward persons who were abstinent when attending the municipal smoking cessation program (FIMs) and three municipalities were randomized to spend the same amount on smoking cessation campaigns recruiting smokers to the smoking cessation program (CAMs). The municipalities each received approximately USD 16,000. An intention-to-treat approach was used in analyses. In regression analyses adjusted for individual- and municipal-level differences, we found that smokers with high SES living in FIMs had significantly higher proportion of validated long-term successful quitters (OR (95% CI): 2.59 (1.6-4.2)) than high-SES smokers living in CAM. Smokers with low SES, however, did not experience the same benefit of financial incentives as smokers with high SES. Neither the FIMs nor the CAMs succeeded in attracting more smokers with low SES during the intervention year 2018 than the year before. Our study showed that smokers with low SES did not experience the same benefit of financial incentives as smokers with high SES.
| S-EPMC9518409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFinancial incentives promote many health behaviors, but effective ways to deliver health incentives remain uncertain.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionsReward-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.).
| S-EPMC4471993 | biostudies-literature