Literature DB >> 35560055

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

Allison N Kurti1, Tyler D Nighbor1, Katherine Tang1, Hypatia A Bolívar1, Carolyn G Evemy1, Joan Skelly1, Stephen T Higgins1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35560055      PMCID: PMC9107025          DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.11889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Netw Open        ISSN: 2574-3805


× No keyword cloud information.

Introduction

Cigarette smoking during pregnancy can cause serious adverse pregnancy, birth, and longer-term health outcomes.[1,2] The most efficacious smoking cessation intervention for peripartum individuals is abstinence-contingent financial incentives (FIs), but there are challenges to scaling this intervention, including reaching individuals in geographically remote areas while retaining treatment efficacy.[3,4] To address that challenge, this study examined the efficacy of a smartphone-based intervention whereby smoking monitoring and incentive delivery was managed via a mobile app.

Methods

This randomized clinical trial included 90 pregnant individuals aged 18 years or older who were recruited nationally via social media; obstetrical clinics; and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) offices between April 2019 and May 2020. The trial protocol appears in Supplement 1. The University of Vermont College of Medicine institutional review board approved this study, and all participants provided written informed consent. The study follows Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines for trial studies (eFigure in Supplement 2). Participants were randomized to Best Practices (BP) alone or with FIs (BP with FI) (detailed previously).[5] Briefly, BP included brief counseling and a tobacco quit-line referral. BP with FI included BP plus an FI intervention in which smoking monitoring and incentive delivery were completed via smartphone app (DynamiCare Health Inc). Participants submitted videos of themselves conducting salivary cotinine tests remotely (Alere iScreen [New Line Medical]) and received autogenerated notifications detailing test results and associated earnings. Incentives were delivered from study start to 12 weeks post partum via a debit card using an escalating schedule (maximum earnings, approximately $1620; mean [SD] earnings, $330.52 [$446.18]).[5] All participants completed 6 assessments during study participation, including a 24-week postpartum assessment after incentives had been discontinued. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in assessment adherence. The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence (self-reported past week abstinence plus a cotinine-negative saliva test). Analyses of smoking-abstinence outcomes included all participants assigned to treatment, except 2 individuals withdrawn following miscarriage. A repeated-measures analysis for categorical data was used to compare treatment conditions on smoking abstinence across assessments based on generalized estimating equations using a logistic link function (SAS PROC GENMOD). Analyses were performed using SAS version 9 (SAS Institute), and a 2-tailed P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Participant characteristics are provided in the Table. Of 167 eligible individuals who completed an initial study orientation session, 90 were enrolled (48 in the BP group; 42 in the BP with FI) across 33 states.
Table.

Participant Characteristics Overall and By Treatment Group

CharacteristicParticipants, No. (%)
Overall (N = 90)BP with FI (n = 42)BP alone (n = 48)
Demographic characteristics
Age, mean (SD), y31.63 (4.67)31.25 (4.46)31.9 (4.87)
Race and ethnicitya
American Indian000
Asian or Pacific Islander000
Black16 (18)9 (23)7 (15)
Hispanic4 (5)1 (2)3 (6)
Multiple5 (6)3 (8)2 (4)
White65 (75)27 (66)38 (81)
Otherb1 (1)1 (3)0 (0)
Education, y
<129 (10)4 (10)5 (10)
1242 (47)20 (49)22 (46)
>1238 (43)17 (41)21 (44)
Married26 (29)11 (27)15 (31)
Working for pay outside home46 (52)22 (54)24 (50)
Living in a rural county21 (27)10 (29)11 (26)
Participates in WIC45 (51)20 (49)25 (52)
Private insurance26 (29)10 (24)16 (33)
Smoking characteristics
Age started smoking, mean (SD), y16.60 (3.70)15.83 (3.47)17.25 (3.80)
Cigarettes per day prepregnancy
<109 (10)6 (15)3 (6)
>1080 (90)35 (85)45 (94)
Cigarettes per day at intake
<1037 (42)18 (44)19 (40)
>1052 (58)23 (56)29 (60)
Living with another smoker56 (63)28 (68)28 (58)
No smoking allowed in home48 (54)24 (59)24 (50)
Cigarette type
Ultra-light or light16 (18)7 (17)9 (19)
Medium12 (13)3 (7)9 (19)
Full flavor61 (69)31 (76)30 (62)
Tried quitting
Prepregnancy67 (75)33 (80)34 (71)
During pregnancy57 (64)26 (63)31 (65)
Time to first cigarette before pregnancy <5 min after waking39 (44)16 (39)23 (48)
Time to first cigarette at intake <5 min after waking13 (15)4 (10)9 (19)
Utilized tobacco quit line during pregnancy14 (21)6 (19)8 (22)
Pregnancy characteristics
Gestational age, mean (SD), wk15.62 (5.63)13.71 (5.44)17.29 (5.30)

Abbreviations: BP, best practices; FI, financial incentives; WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

Participants classified their race and ethnicity according to categories provided by the investigator.

Other includes participants who did not belong to any of the investigator-provided categories.

Abbreviations: BP, best practices; FI, financial incentives; WIC, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Participants classified their race and ethnicity according to categories provided by the investigator. Other includes participants who did not belong to any of the investigator-provided categories. Individuals assigned to BP with FI had nearly 4-fold greater odds of smoking abstinence across antepartum and postpartum assessments compared with individuals receiving BP (χ21 = 6.96; adjusted odds ratio, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.63-8.92; P = .008) (Figure). Abstinence levels decreased across time (χ25 = 16.33; P = .006), with odds of abstinence lower at all postpartum assessment vs the initial antepartum assessment; time did not interact significantly with treatment condition (χ25 = 4.57; P = .47), indicating that abstinence levels in the BP with FI remained greater than those in the BP group through 24 weeks post partum.
Figure.

Seven-Day Point-Prevalence Abstinence Rates for Each Treatment Condition Across Antepartum (AP) and Postpartum (PP) Assessments

Discussion

The nearly 4-fold greater odds of quitting smoking among individuals treated with BP with FI vs BP alone is consistent with meta-analyses identifying FIs as the most effective intervention for peripartum individuals[3,6] and provides a seminal experimental demonstration that the intervention can be delivered remotely while retaining efficacy comparable with clinic-based outcomes.[4] This successful treatment of a national, diverse participant sample highlights the capacity for the present innovative treatment delivery platform to expand the reach of this intervention to a broader swath of peripartum individuals, including those with socioeconomic disadvantage, rural residents, Indigenous individuals, and other racial and ethnic minority individuals. Limitations include the potential for internet-based recruitment to generate samples with higher socioeconomic status than recruiting via WIC offices[4] and reduced precision in estimates of treatment effect size due to underenrollment. Further research examining cost-effectiveness is an important next step in the development and dissemination of this treatment innovation. The present results underscore the considerable potential of this intervention for increasing peripartum smoking cessation, improving maternal-infant health, and reducing health disparities.
  5 in total

Review 1.  Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy.

Authors:  Catherine Chamberlain; Alison O'Mara-Eves; Jessie Porter; Tim Coleman; Susan M Perlen; James Thomas; Joanne E McKenzie
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-02-14

2.  Infant morbidity and mortality attributable to prenatal smoking in the U.S.

Authors:  Patricia M Dietz; Lucinda J England; Carrie K Shapiro-Mendoza; Van T Tong; Sherry L Farr; William M Callaghan
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Efficacy of Adding Financial Incentives to Best practices for Smoking Cessation Among pregnant and Newly postpartum Women.

Authors:  Stephen T Higgins; Tyler D Nighbor; Allison N Kurti; Sarah H Heil; Eric P Slade; Donald S Shepard; Laura J Solomon; Mary Ellen Lynch; Harley K Johnson; Catherine Markesich; Peter L Rippberger; Joan M Skelly; Michael DeSarno; Janice Bunn; Jessie B Hammond; Maria L Roemhildt; Rhonda K Williams; Deirdre M O'Reilly; Ira M Bernstein
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 4.637

4.  Smartphone-based financial incentives to promote smoking cessation during pregnancy: A pilot study.

Authors:  Allison N Kurti; Katherine Tang; Hypatia A Bolivar; Carolyn Evemy; Norman Medina; Joan Skelly; Tyler Nighbor; Stephen T Higgins
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 5.  Incentives for smoking cessation.

Authors:  Kate Cahill; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce; Rafael Perera
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-18
  5 in total
  3 in total

1.  Licit and illicit drug use across trimesters in pregnant women endorsing past-year substance use: Results from National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2009-2019).

Authors:  MacKenzie R Peltier; Walter Roberts; Terril L Verplaetse; Catherine Burke; Yasmin Zakiniaeiz; Kelly Moore; Sherry A McKee
Journal:  Arch Womens Ment Health       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 4.405

2.  Effect of financial voucher incentives provided with UK stop smoking services on the cessation of smoking in pregnant women (CPIT III): pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  David Tappin; Lesley Sinclair; Frank Kee; Margaret McFadden; Lyn Robinson-Smith; Alex Mitchell; Ada Keding; Judith Watson; Sinead Watson; Alison Dick; David Torgerson; Catherine Hewitt; Jennifer McKell; Pat Hoddinott; Fiona M Harris; Kathleen A Boyd; Nicola McMeekin; Michael Ussher; Linda Bauld
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2022-10-19

3.  Smoking Cessation Programs Are Less Effective in Smokers with Low Socioeconomic Status Even When Financial Incentives for Quitting Smoking Are Offered-A Community-Randomized Smoking Cessation Trial in Denmark.

Authors:  Charlotta Pisinger; Cecilie Goltermann Toxværd; Mette Rasmussen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 4.614

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.