Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23750691›Full record

ArticleExperimental and clinical psychopharmacology2013

Acceptability of an Internet-based contingency management intervention for smoking cessation: views of smokers, nonsmokers, and healthcare professionals.

Bethany R Raiff, Brantley P Jarvis, Marissa Turturici, Jesse Dallery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. A Randomized Trial of Adjunct mHealth Abstinence Reinforcement With Transdermal Nicotine and Counseling for Smoking Cessation.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2017
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Client Views of Contingency Management in Gambling Treatment: A Thematic Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Contingency management treatment for substance use disorders: How far has it come, and where does it need to go?Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Internet-based group contingency management to promote smoking abstinence.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2015
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bethany R RaiffDepartment of Psychology, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA. raiff@rowan.edu
Brantley P Jarvis
Marissa Turturici
Jesse Dallery

Funding

Treatment Development & Evaluation CoreP30DA029926 · NIDA · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Lisa A. Marsch · 2011 to 2026
$21.5M
A home-based behavioral treatment for cigarette smokingR01DA019580 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI DALLERY, JESSE · 2007 to 2009
$727k
NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA029926NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA019580NIDA NIH HHS R01DA019580
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The acceptability of an Internet-based contingency management (CM) intervention for cigarette smoking was evaluated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, 67 participants (46% female) completed an Internet-based CM intervention and then answered questions about the intervention. Experiment 2 assessed the acceptability of the intervention among potential treatment users who had never used the intervention, (smokers, n = 164, 52% female), nonsmokers (n = 166, 73% female), and health-care providers (n = 139, 63% female). Participants in Experiment 2 were randomly assigned to either watch a video describing the standard CM intervention (no-deposit group) or to watch a video about the standard intervention plus a deposit incentive (deposit group). Overall, results of both experiments indicated high acceptability across all dimensions of the intervention. In Experiment 1, 74% (n = 26 of participants in the treatment group) of participants said they would use it if they needed to quit, as well as 92% (n = 150 among smokers) of those in Experiment 2. Of the health-care providers, 81% (n = 113) reported that they would be very likely to recommend the intervention to patients. Participants in both experiments reported that monitoring their progress and earning vouchers were strengths of the intervention. The no-deposit group rated voucher earnings, cash earnings, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention higher than the deposit group. Health-care professionals did not differ in their ratings across video conditions. Overall, the results suggest that Internet-based CM is acceptable as a method to help people quit smoking.

Indexed as

InternetAdultFemaleHumansMaleSmoking Cessation

Identifiers

PMID23750691
PMCPMC4000566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.