Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38513087›Full record

Trial reportNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2024

Effects of an Increased Financial Incentive on Follow-up in an Online, Automated Smoking Cessation Trial: A randomized Controlled Study Within a Trial.

Juliet High, Kelly Grant, Aimie Hope, Lee Shepstone, Claire West, Antony Colles, Felix Naughton

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

7 authors.

Juliet HighNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Kelly GrantNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Aimie HopeBehavioural and Implementation Science Group, School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Lee ShepstoneNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Claire WestNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Antony CollesNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Felix NaughtonBehavioural and Implementation Science Group, School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9790-2796

Funding

Department of Health and Social CareNIHR Public Health Research Programme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPoor retention in clinical trials can impact on statistical power, reliability, validity, and generalizability of findings and is a particular challenge in smoking cessation studies. In online trials with automated follow-up mechanisms, poor response also increases the resource need for manual follow-up. This study compared two financial incentives on response rates at 6 months follow up, in an online, automated smoking cessation feasibility trial of a cessation smartphone app (Quit Sense). AIMS AND

methodsA study within a trial (SWAT), embedded within a host randomized controlled trial. Host trial participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either a £10 or £20 voucher incentive, for completing the 6-month questionnaire. Stratification for randomization to the SWAT was by minimization to ensure an even split of host trial arm participants and by 6-week response rate. Outcome measures were: Questionnaire completion rate, time to completion, number of completers requiring manual follow-up, and completeness of responses.

resultsTwo hundred and four participants were randomized to the SWAT. The £20 and £10 incentives did not differ in completion rate at 6 months (79% vs. 74%; p = .362) but did reduce the proportion of participants requiring manual follow-up (46% vs. 62%; p = .018) and the median completion time (7 days vs. 15 days; p = .008). Measure response completeness rates were higher among £20 incentive participants, though differences were small for the host trial's primary smoking outcome.

conclusionsBenefits to using relatively modest increases in incentive for online smoking cessation trials include more rapid completion of follow-up questionnaires and reduced manual follow-up. IMPLICATIONS: A modest increase in incentive (from £10 to £20) to promote the completion of follow-up questionnaires in online smoking cessation trials may not increase overall response rates but could lead to more rapid data collection, a reduced need for manual follow-up and reduced missing data among those who initiate completing a questionnaire. Such an improvement may help to reduce bias, increase validity and generalizability, and improve statistical power in smoking cessation trials.

trial registrationHost trial ISRCTN12326962, SWAT repository store ID 164.

Indexed as

MotivationSmoking CessationAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsRewardSmartphoneSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38513087
PMCPMC11339161

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.