Scott D Halpern1,2,3,4, Benjamin French2,3, Dylan S Small2,5, Kathryn Saulsgiver2,3, Michael O Harhay3, Janet Audrain-McGovern2,6, George Loewenstein2,7, David A Asch1,2,4,8,9,10, Kevin G Volpp1,2,4,8,9,10. 1. 1 Department of Medicine. 2. 2 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics. 3. 3 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology. 4. 4 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, and. 5. 5 Department of Statistics and. 6. 6 Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. 7 Center for Behavioral Decision Research, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. 9 Department of Health Care Management, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. 8 Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and. 10. 10 Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Targeting different smoking cessation programs to smokers most likely to quit when using them could reduce the burden of lung disease. OBJECTIVES: To identify smokers most likely to quit using pure reward-based financial incentives or incentive programs requiring refundable deposits to become eligible for rewards. METHODS: We conducted prespecified secondary analyses of a randomized trial in which 2,538 smokers were assigned to an $800 reward contingent on sustained abstinence from smoking, a refundable $150 deposit plus a $650 reward, or usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using logistic regression, we identified characteristics of smokers that were most strongly associated with accepting their assigned intervention and ceasing smoking for 6 months. We assessed modification of the acceptance, efficacy, and effectiveness of reward and deposit programs by 11 prospectively selected demographic, smoking-related, and psychological factors. Predictors of sustained smoking abstinence differed among participants assigned to reward- versus deposit-based incentives. However, greater readiness to quit and less steep discounting of future rewards were consistently among the most important predictors. Deposit-based programs were uniquely effective relative to usual care among men, higher-income participants, and participants who more commonly failed to pay their bills (all interaction P values < 0.10). Relative to rewards, deposits were more effective among black persons (P = 0.022) and those who more commonly failed to pay their bills (P = 0.082). Relative to rewards, deposits were more commonly accepted by higher-income participants, men, white persons, and those who less commonly failed to pay their bills (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity among smokers in their acceptance and response to different forms of incentives suggests potential benefits of targeting behavior-change interventions based on patient characteristics. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01526265).
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Targeting different smoking cessation programs to smokers most likely to quit when using them could reduce the burden of lung disease. OBJECTIVES: To identify smokers most likely to quit using pure reward-based financial incentives or incentive programs requiring refundable deposits to become eligible for rewards. METHODS: We conducted prespecified secondary analyses of a randomized trial in which 2,538 smokers were assigned to an $800 reward contingent on sustained abstinence from smoking, a refundable $150 deposit plus a $650 reward, or usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using logistic regression, we identified characteristics of smokers that were most strongly associated with accepting their assigned intervention and ceasing smoking for 6 months. We assessed modification of the acceptance, efficacy, and effectiveness of reward and deposit programs by 11 prospectively selected demographic, smoking-related, and psychological factors. Predictors of sustained smoking abstinence differed among participants assigned to reward- versus deposit-based incentives. However, greater readiness to quit and less steep discounting of future rewards were consistently among the most important predictors. Deposit-based programs were uniquely effective relative to usual care among men, higher-income participants, and participants who more commonly failed to pay their bills (all interaction P values < 0.10). Relative to rewards, deposits were more effective among black persons (P = 0.022) and those who more commonly failed to pay their bills (P = 0.082). Relative to rewards, deposits were more commonly accepted by higher-income participants, men, white persons, and those who less commonly failed to pay their bills (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity among smokers in their acceptance and response to different forms of incentives suggests potential benefits of targeting behavior-change interventions based on patient characteristics. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01526265).
Authors: Nancy Haff; Mitesh S Patel; Raymond Lim; Jingsan Zhu; Andrea B Troxel; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2015 May-Jun
Authors: Christine Sheffer; James Mackillop; John McGeary; Reid Landes; Lawrence Carter; Richard Yi; Bryan Jones; Darren Christensen; Maxine Stitzer; Lisa Jackson; Warren Bickel Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2012-04-06
Authors: John R Hughes; Josue P Keely; Ray S Niaura; Deborah J Ossip-Klein; Robyn L Richmond; Gary E Swan Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Benjamin French; Dylan S Small; Julie Novak; Kathryn A Saulsgiver; Michael O Harhay; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp; Scott D Halpern Journal: Trials Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Andrea B Troxel; Christine Brophy; Kathryn Saulsgiver; Kevin G Volpp; Scott D Halpern Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-02
Authors: Christopher L Mosher; Joshua B Smith; William C McManigle; Coral X Giovacchini; Scott L Shofer Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Katherine R Courtright; Erich M Dress; Jaspal Singh; Brian A Bayes; Marzana Chowdhury; Dylan S Small; Timothy Hetherington; Lindsay Plickert; Michael E Detsky; Jason N Doctor; Michael O Harhay; Henry L Burke; Michael B Green; Toan Huynh; D Matthew Sullivan; Scott D Halpern Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-02
Authors: Nienke W Boderie; Johannes Lw van Kippersluis; Diarmaid T Ó Ceallaigh; Márta K Radó; Alex Burdorf; Frank J van Lenthe; Jasper V Been Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 2.692