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.

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:ImportanceAlthough breastfeeding has a positive effect on an infant's health and development, the prevalence is low in many communities. The effect of financial incentives to improve breastfeeding prevalence is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of an area-level financial incentive for breastfeeding on breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum.Design, setting, and participantsThe Nourishing Start for Health (NOSH) trial, a cluster randomized trial with 6 to 8 weeks follow-up, was conducted between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, in 92 electoral ward areas in England with baseline breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum less than 40%. A total of 10 010 mother-infant dyads resident in the 92 study electoral ward areas where the infant's estimated or actual birth date fell between February 18, 2015, and February 17, 2016, were included. Areas were randomized to the incentive plus usual care (n = 46) (5398 mother-infant dyads) or to usual care alone (n = 46) (4612 mother-infant dyads).InterventionsUsual care was delivered by clinicians (mainly midwives, health visitors) in a variety of maternity, neonatal, and infant feeding services, all of which were implementing the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative standards. Shopping vouchers worth £40 (US$50) were offered to mothers 5 times based on infant age (2 days, 10 days, 6-8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months), conditional on the infant receiving any breast milk.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was electoral ward area-level 6- to 8-week breastfeeding period prevalence, as assessed by clinicians at the routine 6- to 8-week postnatal check visit. Secondary outcomes were area-level period prevalence for breastfeeding initiation and for exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks.ResultsIn the intervention (5398 mother-infant dyads) and control (4612 mother-infant dyads) group, the median (interquartile range) percentage of women aged 16 to 44 years was 36.2% (3.0%) and 37.4% (3.6%) years, respectively. After adjusting for baseline breastfeeding prevalence and local government area and weighting to reflect unequal cluster-level breastfeeding prevalence variances, a difference in mean 6- to 8-week breastfeeding prevalence of 5.7 percentage points (37.9% vs 31.7%; 95% CI for adjusted difference, 2.7% to 8.6%; P < .001) in favor of the intervention vs usual care was observed. No significant differences were observed for the mean prevalence of breastfeeding initiation (61.9% vs 57.5%; adjusted mean difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95%, CI, -0.4 to 6.2; P = .08) or the mean prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks (27.0% vs 24.1%; adjusted mean difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 4.8; P = .07).Conclusions and relevanceFinancial incentives may improve breastfeeding rates in areas with low baseline prevalence. Offering a financial incentive to women in areas of England with breastfeeding rates below 40% compared with usual care resulted in a modest but statistically significant increase in breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks. This was measured using routinely collected data.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry: ISRCTN44898617.

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.

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.

Project description:We report results from a single-blinded randomized controlled trial examining financial incentives for smoking cessation among 249 pregnant and newly postpartum women. Participants included 169 women assigned to best practices (BP) or BP plus financial incentives (BP + FI) for smoking cessation available through 12-weeks postpartum. A third condition included 80 never-smokers (NS) sociodemographically-matched to women who smoked. Trial setting was Burlington, Vermont, USA, January, 2014 through January, 2020. Outcomes included 7-day point-prevalence abstinence antepartum and postpartum, and birth and other infant outcomes during 1st year of life. Reliability and external validity of results were assessed using pooled results from the current and four prior controlled trials coupled with data on maternal-smoking status and birth outcomes for all 2019 singleton live births in Vermont. Compared to BP, BP + FI significantly increased abstinence early- (AOR = 9.97; 95%CI, 3.32-29.93) and late-pregnancy (primary outcome, AOR = 5.61; 95%CI, 2.37-13.28) and through 12-weeks postpartum (AOR = 2.46; CI,1.05-5.75) although not 24- (AOR = 1.31; CI,0.54-3.17) or 48-weeks postpartum (AOR = 1.33; CI,0.55-3.25). There was a significant effect of trial condition on small-for-gestational-age (SGA) deliveries (χ2 [2] = 9.01, P = .01), with percent SGA deliveries (+SEM) greatest in BP, intermediate in BP + FI, and lowest in NS (17.65 + 4.13, 10.81 + 3.61, and 2.53 + 1.77, respectively). Reliability analyses supported the efficacy of financial incentives for increasing abstinence antepartum and postpartum and decreasing SGA deliveries; external-validity analyses supported relationships between antepartum cessation and SGA risk. Adding financial incentives to Best Practice increases smoking cessation among antepartum and postpartum women and improves other maternal-infant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02210832.

Dataset Information

Effect of Smartphone-Based Financial Incentives on Peripartum Smoking Among Pregnant Individuals: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Effect of Smartphone-Based Financial Incentives on Peripartum Smoking Among Pregnant Individuals: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets