Incentives for Participation Versus Outcomes
| Status: | Not yet recruiting |
|---|---|
| Conditions: | Smoking Cessation |
| Therapuetic Areas: | Pulmonary / Respiratory Diseases |
| Healthy: | No |
| Age Range: | 18 - Any |
| Updated: | 7/11/2015 |
| Start Date: | October 2013 |
| End Date: | June 2017 |
| Contact: | James O Prochaska, Ph.D. |
| Email: | jop@uri.edu |
| Phone: | 401-874-2830 |
Incentives for Participation Versus Outcomes for Population Cessation of Smoking
One of the most important debates in the field of disease prevention is whether financial
incentives should be contingent on participation in evidence-based programs for smoking
cessation or on actual outcomes, like prolonged abstinence. This study can fill a major
knowledge gap in this debate, which is the lack of any population trial that compared the
impacts of outcomes- and participation-based incentives in a population of smokers. This
research can help policy makers and health service providers choose the incentives approach
that provides the most effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-savings for entire
populations of smokers.
incentives should be contingent on participation in evidence-based programs for smoking
cessation or on actual outcomes, like prolonged abstinence. This study can fill a major
knowledge gap in this debate, which is the lack of any population trial that compared the
impacts of outcomes- and participation-based incentives in a population of smokers. This
research can help policy makers and health service providers choose the incentives approach
that provides the most effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-savings for entire
populations of smokers.
This population-based randomized clinical trial is designed to compare long-term abstinence
rates in three groups of smokers: 1. Those incentivized for participation in an
evidence-based treatment designed for smokers at each stage of change; 2. Those incentivized
for biologically validated prolonged abstinence at 6 and 12 months who could also choose to
participate in the TTM (Transtheoretical Model)-tailored intervention; and 3. An assessment
only control condition.
The Specific Aims are:
1. To assess whether the treatment group incentivized for participation outperforms the
control group at 12, 24 and 36 months as hypothesized;
2. To assess whether the treatment group incentivized for prolonged abstinence at 6 and 12
months outperforms the control group at each follow-up as hypothesized;
3. To assess whether the treatment group incentivized for participation outperforms the
treatment group incentivized for outcomes at 36 months as hypothesized.
4. To compare the cost-effectiveness of each treatment in a population of mostly
unmotivated smokers;
The Secondary Aims are:
1. To assess the long-term treatment trajectories of each treatment compared to controls
with hypothesized increasing trajectory in the participation contingent incentives and
decreasing trajectory in the outcome contingent incentives.
2. To identify mediators of long-term outcomes in each treatment, such as amount of
treatment participation, income, severity of smoking, stage of change, self-efficacy,
perceived health and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to quit.
3. To compare cost-savings of each treatment by modeling all additional costs of smoking
for employers and smokers.
rates in three groups of smokers: 1. Those incentivized for participation in an
evidence-based treatment designed for smokers at each stage of change; 2. Those incentivized
for biologically validated prolonged abstinence at 6 and 12 months who could also choose to
participate in the TTM (Transtheoretical Model)-tailored intervention; and 3. An assessment
only control condition.
The Specific Aims are:
1. To assess whether the treatment group incentivized for participation outperforms the
control group at 12, 24 and 36 months as hypothesized;
2. To assess whether the treatment group incentivized for prolonged abstinence at 6 and 12
months outperforms the control group at each follow-up as hypothesized;
3. To assess whether the treatment group incentivized for participation outperforms the
treatment group incentivized for outcomes at 36 months as hypothesized.
4. To compare the cost-effectiveness of each treatment in a population of mostly
unmotivated smokers;
The Secondary Aims are:
1. To assess the long-term treatment trajectories of each treatment compared to controls
with hypothesized increasing trajectory in the participation contingent incentives and
decreasing trajectory in the outcome contingent incentives.
2. To identify mediators of long-term outcomes in each treatment, such as amount of
treatment participation, income, severity of smoking, stage of change, self-efficacy,
perceived health and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to quit.
3. To compare cost-savings of each treatment by modeling all additional costs of smoking
for employers and smokers.
Inclusion Criteria:
- smoker
Exclusion Criteria:
-
We found this trial at
1
site
Click here to add this to my saved trials
