Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
ImportanceA single round of standard tobacco quitline treatment may not be sufficient to sustain abstinence, particularly among people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Adaptive retreatment may help more individuals with socioeconomic disadvantage achieve abstinence and reduce disparities in smoking cessation outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate 4 evidence-based strategies for adults with limited education, no insurance, or Medicaid eligibility who continued smoking after quitline treatment.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA factorial randomized clinical trial with 4 factors adapting quitline strategies was conducted for participants enrolled from June 7, 2018, to January 25, 2023, with 6-month follow-up. Adults using the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line who were smoking cigarettes 3 to 6 months after prior quitline treatment who were uninsured, Medicaid insured, or had no more than a high school education were included.InterventionsQuitline retreatment strategies were (1) increased counseling intensity (4 calls vs 1 call), (2) increased nicotine replacement therapy intensity (4 weeks of combination nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge vs 2 weeks of nicotine patch), (3) text-message support (National Cancer Institute SmokefreeTXT program vs none), and (4) financial incentives for engagement in counseling and SmokefreeTXT ($30/call and/or 6-week SmokefreeTXT retention vs no incentives).Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence biochemically confirmed abstinence 26 weeks after the target quit day. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.ResultsOf 6019 people assessed for eligibility, 1316 (21.9%) participants were randomized (mean [SD] age, 53.1 [11.9] years; 760 [57.8%] women), and 919 (69.8%) provided final follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses showed 162 participants (12.3%) had biochemically confirmed abstinence at 26 weeks (368 [28.0% self-reported abstinence]). There were no significant main effects for the primary outcome: 1 call (11.6% [77 of 662]) vs 4 calls (13.0% [85 of 654]) (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.24), 2-week patch (11.2% [73 of 654]) vs 4-week combination nicotine replacement therapy (13.4% [89 of 662]) (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94-1.34), no SmokefreeTXT (13.4% [88 of 657]) vs SmokefreeTXT (11.2% [74 of 659]) (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05), and no financial incentives (12.8% [85 of 662]) vs financial incentives (11.8% [77 of 654]) (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial evaluating enhancements to tobacco quitlines for adults with socioeconomic disadvantage who were smoking after quitline treatment, none of the adaptive treatment strategies robustly improved long-term abstinence. Strategies are needed to enhance quitline retreatment effectiveness for adults with socioeconomic disadvantage.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03538938
ImportanceA single round of standard tobacco quitline treatment may not be sufficient to sustain abstinence, particularly among people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Adaptive retreatment may help more individuals with socioeconomic disadvantage achieve abstinence and reduce disparities in smoking cessation outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate 4 evidence-based strategies for adults with limited education, no insurance, or Medicaid eligibility who continued smoking after quitline treatment.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA factorial randomized clinical trial with 4 factors adapting quitline strategies was conducted for participants enrolled from June 7, 2018, to January 25, 2023, with 6-month follow-up. Adults using the Wisconsin Tobacco Quit Line who were smoking cigarettes 3 to 6 months after prior quitline treatment who were uninsured, Medicaid insured, or had no more than a high school education were included.InterventionsQuitline retreatment strategies were (1) increased counseling intensity (4 calls vs 1 call), (2) increased nicotine replacement therapy intensity (4 weeks of combination nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge vs 2 weeks of nicotine patch), (3) text-message support (National Cancer Institute SmokefreeTXT program vs none), and (4) financial incentives for engagement in counseling and SmokefreeTXT ($30/call and/or 6-week SmokefreeTXT retention vs no incentives).Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence biochemically confirmed abstinence 26 weeks after the target quit day. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.ResultsOf 6019 people assessed for eligibility, 1316 (21.9%) participants were randomized (mean [SD] age, 53.1 [11.9] years; 760 [57.8%] women), and 919 (69.8%) provided final follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses showed 162 participants (12.3%) had biochemically confirmed abstinence at 26 weeks (368 [28.0% self-reported abstinence]). There were no significant main effects for the primary outcome: 1 call (11.6% [77 of 662]) vs 4 calls (13.0% [85 of 654]) (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.24), 2-week patch (11.2% [73 of 654]) vs 4-week combination nicotine replacement therapy (13.4% [89 of 662]) (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94-1.34), no SmokefreeTXT (13.4% [88 of 657]) vs SmokefreeTXT (11.2% [74 of 659]) (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.05), and no financial incentives (12.8% [85 of 662]) vs financial incentives (11.8% [77 of 654]) (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial evaluating enhancements to tobacco quitlines for adults with socioeconomic disadvantage who were smoking after quitline treatment, none of the adaptive treatment strategies robustly improved long-term abstinence. Strategies are needed to enhance quitline retreatment effectiveness for adults with socioeconomic disadvantage.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03538938
Background Although regular physical activity (PA) mitigates the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) during midlife, existing PA interventions are minimally effective. Harnessing social influences in daily life shows promise: digital micro-interventions could effectively engage these influences on PA and require testing. Purpose This feasibility study employed ecological momentary assessment with embedded micro-randomization to activate two types of social influences (i.e., comparison, support; NCT04711512). Methods Midlife adults (N = 30, MAge = 51, MBMI = 31.5 kg/m2, 43% racial/ethnic minority) with ≥1 CVD risk conditions completed four mobile surveys per day for 7 days while wearing PA monitors. After 3 days of observation, participants were randomized at each survey to receive 1 of 3 comparison micro-interventions (days 4–5) or 1 of 3 support micro-interventions (days 6–7). Outcomes were indicators of feasibility (e.g., completion rate), acceptability (e.g., narrative feedback), and potential micro-intervention effects (on motivation and steps within-person). Results Feasibility and acceptability targets were met (e.g., 93% completion); ratings of micro-intervention helpfulness varied by intervention type and predicted PA motivation and behavior within-person (srs=0.16, 0.27). Participants liked the approach and were open to ongoing micro-intervention exposure. Within-person, PA motivation and behavior increased from baseline in response to specific micro-interventions (srs=0.23, 0.13), though responses were variable. Conclusions Experimental manipulation of social influences in daily life is feasible and acceptable to midlife adults and shows potential effects on PA motivation and behavior. Findings support larger-scale testing of this approach to inform a digital, socially focused PA intervention for midlife adults.
In the classical paradigm for intervention research, the components that are to make up an intervention are identified, pilot tested, and then immediately assembled into a treatment package and subjected to an evaluation randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the performance of the entire package. Intervention optimization, which adapts ideas from technological fields to intervention science in order to hasten scientific progress, is an alternative to the classical paradigm. The first article introducing intervention optimization via the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) was published in Annals of Behavioral Medicine in 2005. In this commentary, I reflect on the evolution of intervention optimization from that first publication to today, and on what the future could hold if the intervention science field continues to adopt the optimization paradigm. I propose that if intervention optimization became standard operating procedure, the field would accumulate a coherent base of knowledge about what specific intervention strategies work, for whom, under which circumstances, and why; every intervention produced would contain only components that contribute enough to justify their resource requirements; interventions would be readily implementable; and as the knowledge base grew, interventions would be improved continually.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.