Financial Incentives Promote Smoking Cessation Directly, Not by Increasing Use of Cessation Aids.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Harhay MO
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6376943 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Financial Incentives Promote Smoking Cessation Directly, Not by Increasing Use of Cessation Aids.
Harhay Michael O MO Troxel Andrea B AB Brophy Christine C Saulsgiver Kathryn K Volpp Kevin G KG Halpern Scott D SD
Annals of the American Thoracic Society 20190201 2
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC7680385 | 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:IntroductionFinancial incentives effectively increase smoking cessation rates, but it is unclear via which psychological mechanisms incentives influence quit behavior. The current study examines how receiving financial incentives for smoking cessation leads to quitting smoking and investigates several mediators and moderators of that relationship.Aims and methodsThe study sample consisted of 604 tobacco-smoking employees from 61 companies in the Netherlands who completed a baseline and follow-up questionnaire. The current study is a secondary analysis from a cluster randomized trial where employees received smoking cessation group counseling at the workplace. Participants in the intervention group additionally received financial incentives of €350 in total for 12-month continuous smoking abstinence. We used a two-level path analysis to test a model that assesses the effects of financial incentives through smoking cessation program evaluation, medication use, nicotine replacement use, attitudes, self-efficacy, and social influences on quit success. We additionally tested whether an individual's reward responsiveness moderated the influence of incentives on quit success.ResultsThe effect of financial incentives on quit success was mediated by a higher self-efficacy. Financial incentives were also associated with a higher use of cessation medication. A more positive program evaluation was related to higher self-efficacy, more social influence to quit, and more positive attitudes about quitting. The results did not differ significantly by individual reward responsiveness.ConclusionsThe results of the current study suggest that financial incentives may be used to increase medication use and self-efficacy for quitting smoking, which offers an indirect way to increase successful smoking cessation.Implications(1) This is the first study investigating via which psychological pathways financial incentives for quitting smoking can lead to long-term quit success. (2) The results showed a path between financial incentives and a higher likelihood of medication use. Incentives may encourage smokers to use medication in order to increase their chance of quitting smoking and receive the reward. (3) There was a path from financial incentives to quit success via a higher self-efficacy. (4) The effects of financial incentives did not depend on individual reward responsiveness.
| S-EPMC7789935 | 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:BackgroundThe high prevalence of smoking pregnant women in Dutch areas with lower socioeconomic status and the consecutively harmful exposure to tobacco to both mother and child, depicted a high need for a novel intervention. According to other studies, the utilisation of financial incentives appeared to be a promising method for smoking cessation in pregnant women. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of implementing contingent financial incentives as smoking cessation support for pregnant women in the Netherlands.MethodsFeasibility study consisting of four developmental phases: (1) acceptability of Dutch population regarding financial-incentive-intervention by conducting an online questionnaire, (2) composing a pilot study utilising the financial-incentive-intervention in clinical practice, (3) execution of the composed pilot study and (4) evaluation of the executed pilot study utilising a mixed-methods approach. A financial-incentive-intervention, given in a contingent financial scheme (during five consequential appointments, respectively €25/€50/€100/€150/€250), if smoking abstinence was proven by the amount of cotinine in the urine of the pregnant women measured utilising a urine dipstick test. The public acceptability for the financial-incentive-intervention was assessed using 5-Likert scales. The number of pregnant women able to abstain from smoking during the pilot study and utilising the financial-incentive-intervention in clinical practice were used to assess the prosperity and practicality of the pilot study respectively. The pilot study was evaluated using a mixed-methods approach.ResultsIn total, 55.1% of the Dutch population sample (n = 328) found a financial incentive inappropriate for smoking cessation in pregnant women, while the healthcare professionals and pilot study participants thought the financial-incentive-intervention to be a helpful approach. Eleven vouchers were given during the pilot study, and one woman completed all test points and tested negative for cotinine at the end of the pilot study.ConclusionAlthough the financial-incentive-intervention appeared to be a promising approach for smoking cessation in pregnant women, the acceptability of the Dutch population and the number of pregnant women able to abstain smoking during this pilot study was low. Despite the limited study population, this study proved the concept of this financial-incentive-intervention to be feasible for implementation in the Netherlands.Trial registrationNot applicable since this is a feasibility study prior to a trial.
| S-EPMC9789602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFinancial incentives for smoking cessation and use of evidence-based therapy may increase quitting rates and reduce health and economic disparities.MethodsWe 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.ResultsTotal 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.ConclusionsRates 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.
| S-EPMC7293955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Higgins and colleagues' recently-completed randomized controlled trial and pooled data with 4 related trials of smoking cessation in pregnant women in Vermont (USA) showed that abstinence-contingent financial incentives (FI) increased abstinence over control conditions from early pregnancy through 24-weeks postpartum. Control conditions were best practices (BP) alone in the recent trial and payments provided independent of smoking status (noncontingently) in the others. This paper reports economic analyses of abstinence-contingent FI. Merging trial results with maternal and infant healthcare costs from all Vermont Medicaid deliveries in 2019, we computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and compared them to established thresholds. The healthcare sector cost (±standard error) of adding FI to BP averaged $634.76 ± $531.61 per participant. Based on this trial, the increased probability per BP + FI participant of smoking abstinence at 24-weeks postpartum was 3.17%, the cost per additional abstinent woman was $20,043, the incremental health gain was 0.0270 ± 0.0412 QALYs, the ICER was $23,511/QALY gained, and the probabilities that BP + FI was very cost-effective (ICER≤$65,910) and cost-effective (ICER≤$100,000) were 67.9% and 71.0%, respectively. Based on the pooled trials, the corresponding values were even more favorable-8.89%, $7138, 0.0758 ± 0.0178 QALYs, $8371/QALY, 98.6% and 99.3%, respectively. Each dollar invested in abstinence-contingent FI over control smoking-cessation programs yielded $4.20 in economic benefits in the recent trial and $11.90 in the pooled trials (very favorable benefit-cost ratios). Medicaid and commercial insurers may wish to consider covering financial incentives for smoking abstinence as a cost-effective service for pregnant beneficiaries who smoke. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02210832.
| S-EPMC11226006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Worksite smoking cessation programs offer accessibility of the target population, availability of occupational health support, and the potential for peer pressure and peer support. The purpose of this study was to identify the efficacy of the financial incentives given to various teams in the workplace. St. Paul's Hospital's employees were enrolled. Each team of employees consisted of smoking participants and non-smoking fellow workers from the same department. The financial incentive of 50000 won (about $45) was rewarded to the team for each successful participant-not to individual members-after the first week and then after one month. If the smokers in the team remained abstinent for a longer time period, the team was given an incentive of 100000 won for each successful participant after 3 and 6 months. A total 28 smoking participants and 6 teams were enrolled. Self-reported abstinence rates validated by urinary cotinine test at 3, 6, and 12 months after the initial cessation were 61%, 54%, and 50%, respectively. Smokers with high nicotine dependence scores or those who began participation 1 month after enrollment initiation had a lower abstinence rate at 3 months, but not at 6 and 12 months. Participants who succeeded at smoking cessation at 12 months were more likely to be older and have a longer smoking duration history. The financial incentives given to teams could be promising and effective to improve long-term rates of smoking cessation. This approach could use peer pressure and peer support in the workplace over a longer period.
| S-EPMC4276770 | biostudies-literature
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 examine whether an efficacious voucher-based incentives intervention for decreasing smoking during pregnancy and increasing fetal growth could be improved without increasing costs. The strategy was to redistribute the usual incentives so that higher values were available early in the quit attempt.Method118 pregnant smokers in greater Burlington, Vermont (studied December, 2006-June, 2012) were randomly assigned to the revised contingent voucher (RCV) or usual contingent voucher (CV) schedule of abstinence-contingent vouchers, or to a non-contingent voucher (NCV) control condition wherein vouchers were provided independent of smoking status. Smoking status was biochemically verified; serial sonographic estimates of fetal growth were obtained at gestational weeks 30-34.ResultsRCV and CV conditions increased point-prevalence abstinence above NCV levels at early (RCV: 40%, CV: 46%, NCV: 13%, p=.007) and late-pregnancy (RCV: 45%; CV: 36%; NCV, 18%; p=.04) assessments, but abstinence levels did not differ between the RCV and CV conditions. The RCV intervention did not increase fetal growth above control levels while the CV condition did so (p<.05).ConclusionThis trial further supports the efficacy of CV for increasing antepartum abstinence and fetal growth, but other strategies (e.g., increasing overall incentive values) will be necessary to improve outcomes further.
| S-EPMC4183736 | biostudies-literature