Trial reportAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2016
Heterogeneity in the Effects of Reward- and Deposit-based Financial Incentives on Smoking Cessation.
Trial report in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incentive programmes for smoking cessation: cluster randomized trial in workplaces in Thailand.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Trial
- Financial Incentives Promote Smoking Cessation Directly, Not by Increasing Use of Cessation Aids.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019Trial
- Promoting healthy behaviour with financial incentives: three challenges and solutions for large scale implementation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Review
- Effects of short-term nicotine deprivation on delay discounting among young, experienced, exclusive ENDS users: An initial study.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2023Article
- Article
- Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the Intensive Care Unit Trial Protocol.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2021Article
- PERSonalised Incentives for Supporting Tobacco cessation (PERSIST) among healthcare employees: a randomised controlled trial protocol.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Electronic Cigarettes: A Role in Smoking Cessation?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Participation in a workplace smoking cessation program incentivized by lowering the cost of health care coverage: Findings from the LLUH BREATHE cohort.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2020Article
- Time to selected quit date and subsequent rates of sustained smoking abstinence.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleTargeting different smoking cessation programs to smokers most likely to quit when using them could reduce the burden of lung disease.
objectivesTo identify smokers most likely to quit using pure reward-based financial incentives or incentive programs requiring refundable deposits to become eligible for rewards.
methodsWe conducted prespecified secondary analyses of a randomized trial in which 2,538 smokers were assigned to an $800 reward contingent on sustained abstinence from smoking, a refundable $150 deposit plus a $650 reward, or usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsUsing logistic regression, we identified characteristics of smokers that were most strongly associated with accepting their assigned intervention and ceasing smoking for 6 months. We assessed modification of the acceptance, efficacy, and effectiveness of reward and deposit programs by 11 prospectively selected demographic, smoking-related, and psychological factors. Predictors of sustained smoking abstinence differed among participants assigned to reward- versus deposit-based incentives. However, greater readiness to quit and less steep discounting of future rewards were consistently among the most important predictors. Deposit-based programs were uniquely effective relative to usual care among men, higher-income participants, and participants who more commonly failed to pay their bills (all interaction P values < 0.10). Relative to rewards, deposits were more effective among black persons (P = 0.022) and those who more commonly failed to pay their bills (P = 0.082). Relative to rewards, deposits were more commonly accepted by higher-income participants, men, white persons, and those who less commonly failed to pay their bills (all P < 0.05).
conclusionsHeterogeneity among smokers in their acceptance and response to different forms of incentives suggests potential benefits of targeting behavior-change interventions based on patient characteristics. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01526265).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.