David L Fraser1, Michael C Fiore2, Kate Kobinsky1, Robert Adsit1, Stevens S Smith3, Mimi L Johnson4, Timothy B Baker3. 1. Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 2. Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: mcf@ctri.wisc.edu. 3. Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 4. Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Low-income populations are especially likely to smoke and have difficulty quitting. This study evaluated a monetary incentive intended to increase smoking treatment engagement and abstinence among Medicaid recipients who smoke. STUDY DESIGN: Two-group randomized clinical trial of Incentive (n=948) and Control interventions (n=952) for smoking. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid recipients recruited from primary care patients (n=920) and callers to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (n=980). INTERVENTION: Participants were offered five quitline cessation calls and were encouraged to obtain cessation medication (covered by Medicaid). All participants received payment for completing a baseline assessment and a 6-month smoking test. Only Incentive condition participants received compensation for taking counseling calls ($30 per call) and for biochemically verified abstinence at the 6-month visit ($40). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seven-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence 6-months post study entry and cost/quit. RESULTS: Incentive condition participants had significantly higher biochemically determined 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence rates 6 months after study induction than did Controls (21.6% vs 13.8%, respectively, p<0.0001). A positive treatment effect of incentives was present across other abstinence indices, but the size of effects and levels of abstinence varied considerably across indices. Incentive condition participants were also significantly more likely than non-incentivized Control participants to accept Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line treatment calls and their acceptance of calls mediated their attainment of higher abstinence rates at 6-month follow-up. The cost/quit/participant averaged $4,268.26 for the Control participants and $3,601.37 for the Incentive participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that fairly moderate levels of incentive payments for treatment engagement and abstinence (a total possible payment of $190) increased very low-income smokers' engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02713594.
INTRODUCTION: Low-income populations are especially likely to smoke and have difficulty quitting. This study evaluated a monetary incentive intended to increase smoking treatment engagement and abstinence among Medicaid recipients who smoke. STUDY DESIGN: Two-group randomized clinical trial of Incentive (n=948) and Control interventions (n=952) for smoking. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid recipients recruited from primary care patients (n=920) and callers to the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line (n=980). INTERVENTION: Participants were offered five quitline cessation calls and were encouraged to obtain cessation medication (covered by Medicaid). All participants received payment for completing a baseline assessment and a 6-month smoking test. Only Incentive condition participants received compensation for taking counseling calls ($30 per call) and for biochemically verified abstinence at the 6-month visit ($40). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seven-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence 6-months post study entry and cost/quit. RESULTS: Incentive condition participants had significantly higher biochemically determined 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence rates 6 months after study induction than did Controls (21.6% vs 13.8%, respectively, p<0.0001). A positive treatment effect of incentives was present across other abstinence indices, but the size of effects and levels of abstinence varied considerably across indices. Incentive condition participants were also significantly more likely than non-incentivized Control participants to accept Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line treatment calls and their acceptance of calls mediated their attainment of higher abstinence rates at 6-month follow-up. The cost/quit/participant averaged $4,268.26 for the Control participants and $3,601.37 for the Incentive participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that fairly moderate levels of incentive payments for treatment engagement and abstinence (a total possible payment of $190) increased very low-income smokers' engagement and success in smoking cessation treatment. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02713594.
Authors: Darla E Kendzor; Michael S Businelle; Insiya B Poonawalla; Erica L Cuate; Anshula Kesh; Debra M Rios; Ping Ma; David S Balis Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: David Tappin; Linda Bauld; David Purves; Kathleen Boyd; Lesley Sinclair; Susan MacAskill; Jennifer McKell; Brenda Friel; Alex McConnachie; Linda de Caestecker; Carol Tannahill; Andrew Radley; Tim Coleman Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-27
Authors: Kolawole S Okuyemi; Kate Goldade; Guy-Lucien Whembolua; Janet L Thomas; Sara Eischen; Barrett Sewali; Hongfei Guo; John E Connett; Jon Grant; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Ken Resnicow; Greg Owen; Lillian Gelberg; Don Des Jarlais Journal: Addiction Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Ingrid Giesinger; Peter Goldblatt; Philippa Howden-Chapman; Michael Marmot; Diana Kuh; Eric Brunner Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Marlon P Mundt; Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; Stevens S Smith; David L Fraser; Michael C Fiore Journal: Tob Control Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Caitlin Notley; Sarah Gentry; Jonathan Livingstone-Banks; Linda Bauld; Rafael Perera; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-17
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Kristin M Berg; Robert T Adsit; Amy D Skora; Matthew P Swedlund; Mark E Zehner; Danielle E McCarthy; Russell E Glasgow; Michael C Fiore Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Cara M Murphy; Lauren Micalizzi; Alexander W Sokolovsky; Belinda Borrelli; Ernestine G Jennings; Christina S Lee; Donna R Parker; Patricia Markham Risica Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-04-22
Authors: Lorraine S Lathen; Monique L Plears; Emile L Shartle; Karen L Conner; Michael C Fiore; Bruce A Christiansen Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2020-07-09
Authors: Elias M Klemperer; Robin Mermelstein; Timothy B Baker; John R Hughes; Michael C Fiore; Megan E Piper; Tanya R Schlam; Douglas E Jorenby; Linda M Collins; Jessica W Cook Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 4.244