Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34255651›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

A Web-Based Intervention to Increase Smokers' Intentions to Participate in a Cessation Study Offered at the Point of Lung Screening: Factorial Randomized Trial.

Jordan M Neil, Yuchiao Chang, Brett Goshe, Nancy Rigotti, Irina Gonzalez, Saif Hawari, Lauren Ballini, Jennifer S Haas, Caylin Marotta, Amy Wint and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jordan M NeilHealth Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5769-4961
Yuchiao ChangMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1093-3755
Brett GosheMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7417-7488
Nancy RigottiDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2223-1657
Irina GonzalezMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-1313
Saif HawariMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1530-5344
Lauren BalliniDepartment of Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9424-1248
Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7227-851X
Caylin MarottaDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2582-7365
Amy WintDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4330-5643
Kim HarrisDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7573-7950
Sydney CruteDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7809-1297
Efren FloresMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1398-0426
Elyse R ParkMongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6319-264X
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USTufts University · US

Funding

Research Diversity Supplement Assessing the Integration of Tobacco Cessation Treatment into Lung Cancer ScreeningR01CA218123 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HAAS, JENNIFER S, PARK, ELYSE R. · 2018 to 2022
$4.4M
Optimizing Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Intervention During LDCT screening for Lung CancerR01CA207078 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI CINCIRIPINI, PAUL MICHAEL · 2016 to 2021
$3.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA207078NCI NIH HHS R01 CA218123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreen ASSIST is a cessation trial offered to current smokers at the point of lung cancer screening. Because of the unique position of promoting a prevention behavior (smoking cessation) within the context of a detection behavior (lung cancer screening), this study employed prospect theory to design and formatively evaluate a targeted recruitment video prior to trial launch.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify which message frames were most effective at promoting intent to participate in a smoking cessation study.

methodsParticipants were recruited from a proprietary opt-in online panel company and randomized to a 2 (benefits of quitting vs risks of continuing to smoke at the time of lung screening; BvR) × 2 (gains of participating vs losses of not participating in a cessation study; GvL) message design experiment (N=314). The primary outcome was self-assessed intent to participate in a smoking cessation study. Message effectiveness and lung cancer risk perception measures were also collected. Analysis of variance examined the main effect of the 2 message factors and a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach identified predictors of intent to participate in a multivariable model. A mediation analysis was conducted to determine the direct and indirect effects of message factors on intent to participate in a cessation study.

resultsA total of 296 participants completed the intervention. There were no significant differences in intent to participate in a smoking cessation study between message frames (P=.12 and P=.61). In the multivariable model, quit importance (P<.001), perceived message relevance (P<.001), and affective risk response (ie, worry about developing lung cancer; P<.001) were significant predictors of intent to participate. The benefits of quitting frame significantly increased affective risk response (Mean

conclusionsThis study provides theoretical and practical guidance on how to design and evaluate proactive recruitment messages for a cessation trial. Based on our findings, we conclude that heavy smokers are more responsive to recruitment messages that frame the benefits of quitting as it increased affective risk response, which predicted greater intention to participate in a smoking cessation study.

Indexed as

clinical trials recruitmentdigital outreachlung cancer screeningmessage design experimentprospect theorysmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID34255651
PMCPMC8280830
OpenAlexW3174262725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.