Darla E Kendzor1, Michael S Businelle2, Damon J Vidrine3, Summer G Frank-Pearce4, Ya-Chen Tina Shih5, Jesse Dallery6, Adam C Alexander2, Laili Kharazi Boozary7, Joseph J C Waring8, Sarah J Ehlke9. 1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America; TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America. Electronic address: Darla-Kendzor@ouhsc.edu. 2. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America; TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America. 3. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States of America. 4. TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America; Hudson College of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America. 5. Department of Health Services Research, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States of America. 6. Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America. 7. TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America; Department of Psychology, Cellular and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States of America. 8. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. 9. TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking rates remain high among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. Offering small escalating financial incentives for abstinence (i.e., contingency management [CM]), alongside clinic-based treatment dramatically increases cessation rates in this vulnerable population. However, innovative approaches are needed for those who are less able to attend office visits. The current study will evaluate an automated mobile phone-based CM approach that will allow socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals to remotely earn financial incentives for smoking cessation. METHODS: The investigators have previously combined technologies, including 1) carbon monoxide monitors that connect with mobile phones to remotely verify abstinence, 2) facial recognition software to confirm identity during breath sample submissions, and 3) automated delivery of incentives triggered by biochemical abstinence confirmation. This automated CM approach will be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial of 532 low-income adults seeking cessation treatment. Participants will be randomly assigned to telephone counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (standard care [SC]) or SC plus mobile financial incentives (CM) for abstinence. RESULTS: Biochemically-verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks post-quit is the primary outcome. The cost-effectiveness of the interventions will be evaluated. Potential treatment mechanisms, including self-efficacy, motivation, and treatment engagement, will be explored to optimize future interventions. DISCUSSION: Automated mobile CM may offer a low-cost approach to smoking cessation that can be combined with telephone counseling and pharmacological interventions. This approach represents a critical step toward the widespread dissemination of CM treatment to real-world settings, to reduce tobacco-related disease and disparities.
BACKGROUND: Smoking rates remain high among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. Offering small escalating financial incentives for abstinence (i.e., contingency management [CM]), alongside clinic-based treatment dramatically increases cessation rates in this vulnerable population. However, innovative approaches are needed for those who are less able to attend office visits. The current study will evaluate an automated mobile phone-based CM approach that will allow socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals to remotely earn financial incentives for smoking cessation. METHODS: The investigators have previously combined technologies, including 1) carbon monoxide monitors that connect with mobile phones to remotely verify abstinence, 2) facial recognition software to confirm identity during breath sample submissions, and 3) automated delivery of incentives triggered by biochemical abstinence confirmation. This automated CM approach will be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial of 532 low-income adults seeking cessation treatment. Participants will be randomly assigned to telephone counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (standard care [SC]) or SC plus mobile financial incentives (CM) for abstinence. RESULTS: Biochemically-verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks post-quit is the primary outcome. The cost-effectiveness of the interventions will be evaluated. Potential treatment mechanisms, including self-efficacy, motivation, and treatment engagement, will be explored to optimize future interventions. DISCUSSION: Automated mobile CM may offer a low-cost approach to smoking cessation that can be combined with telephone counseling and pharmacological interventions. This approach represents a critical step toward the widespread dissemination of CM treatment to real-world settings, to reduce tobacco-related disease and disparities.
Authors: Tracy O'L Tevyaw; Suzanne M Colby; Jennifer W Tidey; Christopher W Kahler; Damaris J Rohsenow; Nancy P Barnett; Chad J Gwaltney; Peter M Monti Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-05-14 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