Jesse Dallery1,2, Bethany R Raiff3, Sunny Jung Kim4, Lisa A Marsch4, Maxine Stitzer5, Michael J Grabinski6. 1. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. National Development and Research Institutes, New York, NY, USA. 3. Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA. 4. The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA. 5. The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Red5hift LLC, Hanover, NH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Contingency management (CM) is one of the most effective behavioral interventions to promote drug abstinence, but availability of this treatment is limited. We evaluated the efficacy and acceptability of internet-based CM relative to an internet-based monitoring and goal-setting controlgroup in a nationwide sample of cigarette smokers. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers (n = 94) from 26 states were enrolled (mean age 36, 56% female). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were randomized to earn financial incentives (up to $480 over 7 weeks) based on video-verified abstinence using breath carbon monoxide (CO) output (n = 48; abstinent contingent group, AC), or based on submitting CO samples (n = 46, submission contingent, SC). Both groups also received the same CO-based goals. A $50 deposit was required in both groups that could be recouped from initial earnings. MEASURES: The primary outcome was point prevalence at week 4. Secondary outcomes were point prevalence at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups, percentages of negative CO samples, adherence to the CO sampling protocol, and treatment acceptability ratings on a 0-100-mm visual analog scale. FINDINGS:Abstinence rates differed at 4 weeks between the AC (39.6%) and SC (13.0%) groups [odds ratio (OR) = 4.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6-12.3], but not at the 3- (29.2% AC and 19.6% SC, OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.6-4.4) or 6- (22.9% AC and 13.0% SC, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 0.7-5.9) month follow-ups. During the two main treatment phases, there were significant differences in negative COs (53.9% AC and 24.8% SC, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 3.1-4.0; 43.4% AC and 24.6% SC, OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.6-3.4). Adherence to the CO submission protocol was equivalent (78% AC and 85% SC, difference = 7.0%, 95% CI = -10.3 to 23.8 %, F < 1, P = 0.39). The lowest acceptability ratings were for the items assessing the deposit, whereas the highest ratings concerned the ease of the intervention, the graph of CO results, and earning money. CONCLUSIONS: A contingency management/financial incentive program delivered via the internet improved short-term abstinence rates compared with an internet program without the incentives.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Contingency management (CM) is one of the most effective behavioral interventions to promote drug abstinence, but availability of this treatment is limited. We evaluated the efficacy and acceptability of internet-based CM relative to an internet-based monitoring and goal-setting control group in a nationwide sample of cigarette smokers. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Smokers (n = 94) from 26 states were enrolled (mean age 36, 56% female). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants were randomized to earn financial incentives (up to $480 over 7 weeks) based on video-verified abstinence using breath carbon monoxide (CO) output (n = 48; abstinent contingent group, AC), or based on submitting CO samples (n = 46, submission contingent, SC). Both groups also received the same CO-based goals. A $50 deposit was required in both groups that could be recouped from initial earnings. MEASURES: The primary outcome was point prevalence at week 4. Secondary outcomes were point prevalence at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups, percentages of negative CO samples, adherence to the CO sampling protocol, and treatment acceptability ratings on a 0-100-mm visual analog scale. FINDINGS: Abstinence rates differed at 4 weeks between the AC (39.6%) and SC (13.0%) groups [odds ratio (OR) = 4.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6-12.3], but not at the 3- (29.2% AC and 19.6% SC, OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 0.6-4.4) or 6- (22.9% AC and 13.0% SC, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 0.7-5.9) month follow-ups. During the two main treatment phases, there were significant differences in negative COs (53.9% AC and 24.8% SC, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 3.1-4.0; 43.4% AC and 24.6% SC, OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.6-3.4). Adherence to the CO submission protocol was equivalent (78% AC and 85% SC, difference = 7.0%, 95% CI = -10.3 to 23.8 %, F < 1, P = 0.39). The lowest acceptability ratings were for the items assessing the deposit, whereas the highest ratings concerned the ease of the intervention, the graph of CO results, and earning money. CONCLUSIONS: A contingency management/financial incentive program delivered via the internet improved short-term abstinence rates compared with an internet program without the incentives.
Authors: Stephen S Lim; Theo Vos; Abraham D Flaxman; Goodarz Danaei; Kenji Shibuya; Heather Adair-Rohani; Markus Amann; H Ross Anderson; Kathryn G Andrews; Martin Aryee; Charles Atkinson; Loraine J Bacchus; Adil N Bahalim; Kalpana Balakrishnan; John Balmes; Suzanne Barker-Collo; Amanda Baxter; Michelle L Bell; Jed D Blore; Fiona Blyth; Carissa Bonner; Guilherme Borges; Rupert Bourne; Michel Boussinesq; Michael Brauer; Peter Brooks; Nigel G Bruce; Bert Brunekreef; Claire Bryan-Hancock; Chiara Bucello; Rachelle Buchbinder; Fiona Bull; Richard T Burnett; Tim E Byers; Bianca Calabria; Jonathan Carapetis; Emily Carnahan; Zoe Chafe; Fiona Charlson; Honglei Chen; Jian Shen Chen; Andrew Tai-Ann Cheng; Jennifer Christine Child; Aaron Cohen; K Ellicott Colson; Benjamin C Cowie; Sarah Darby; Susan Darling; Adrian Davis; Louisa Degenhardt; Frank Dentener; Don C Des Jarlais; Karen Devries; Mukesh Dherani; Eric L Ding; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Karen Edmond; Suad Eltahir Ali; Rebecca E Engell; Patricia J Erwin; Saman Fahimi; Gail Falder; Farshad Farzadfar; Alize Ferrari; Mariel M Finucane; Seth Flaxman; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Greg Freedman; Michael K Freeman; Emmanuela Gakidou; Santu Ghosh; Edward Giovannucci; Gerhard Gmel; Kathryn Graham; Rebecca Grainger; Bridget Grant; David Gunnell; Hialy R Gutierrez; Wayne Hall; Hans W Hoek; Anthony Hogan; H Dean Hosgood; Damian Hoy; Howard Hu; Bryan J Hubbell; Sally J Hutchings; Sydney E Ibeanusi; Gemma L Jacklyn; Rashmi Jasrasaria; Jost B Jonas; Haidong Kan; John A Kanis; Nicholas Kassebaum; Norito Kawakami; Young-Ho Khang; Shahab Khatibzadeh; Jon-Paul Khoo; Cindy Kok; Francine Laden; Ratilal Lalloo; Qing Lan; Tim Lathlean; Janet L Leasher; James Leigh; Yang Li; John Kent Lin; Steven E Lipshultz; Stephanie London; Rafael Lozano; Yuan Lu; Joelle Mak; Reza Malekzadeh; Leslie Mallinger; Wagner Marcenes; Lyn March; Robin Marks; Randall Martin; Paul McGale; John McGrath; Sumi Mehta; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Renata Micha; Catherine Michaud; Vinod Mishra; Khayriyyah Mohd Hanafiah; Ali A Mokdad; Lidia Morawska; Dariush Mozaffarian; Tasha Murphy; Mohsen Naghavi; Bruce Neal; Paul K Nelson; Joan Miquel Nolla; Rosana Norman; Casey Olives; Saad B Omer; Jessica Orchard; Richard Osborne; Bart Ostro; Andrew Page; Kiran D Pandey; Charles D H Parry; Erin Passmore; Jayadeep Patra; Neil Pearce; Pamela M Pelizzari; Max Petzold; Michael R Phillips; Dan Pope; C Arden Pope; John Powles; Mayuree Rao; Homie Razavi; Eva A Rehfuess; Jürgen T Rehm; Beate Ritz; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Roberts; Carolyn Robinson; Jose A Rodriguez-Portales; Isabelle Romieu; Robin Room; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Ananya Roy; Lesley Rushton; Joshua A Salomon; Uchechukwu Sampson; Lidia Sanchez-Riera; Ella Sanman; Amir Sapkota; Soraya Seedat; Peilin Shi; Kevin Shield; Rupak Shivakoti; Gitanjali M Singh; David A Sleet; Emma Smith; Kirk R Smith; Nicolas J C Stapelberg; Kyle Steenland; Heidi Stöckl; Lars Jacob Stovner; Kurt Straif; Lahn Straney; George D Thurston; Jimmy H Tran; Rita Van Dingenen; Aaron van Donkelaar; J Lennert Veerman; Lakshmi Vijayakumar; Robert Weintraub; Myrna M Weissman; Richard A White; Harvey Whiteford; Steven T Wiersma; James D Wilkinson; Hywel C Williams; Warwick Williams; Nicholas Wilson; Anthony D Woolf; Paul Yip; Jan M Zielinski; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Majid Ezzati; Mohammad A AlMazroa; Ziad A Memish Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Steven E Meredith; Andrew Robinson; Philip Erb; Claire A Spieler; Noah Klugman; Prabal Dutta; Jesse Dallery Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jeffrey S Hertzberg; Vickie L Carpenter; Angela C Kirby; Patrick S Calhoun; Scott D Moore; Michelle F Dennis; Paul A Dennis; Eric A Dedert; Jean C Beckham Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Erin A McClure; Rachel L Tomko; Matthew J Carpenter; Frank A Treiber; Kevin M Gray Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Marlon P Mundt; Timothy B Baker; David L Fraser; Stevens S Smith; Megan E Piper; Michael C Fiore Journal: Value Health Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Rachel L Tomko; Kevin M Gray; Stephanie R Oppenheimer; Amy E Wahlquist; Erin A McClure Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 3.829