Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41353912›Full record

Trial reportDrug and alcohol dependence2026

Comparison of remote to hybrid methods on recruitment and retention rates in a smoking cessation trial.

Elizabeth S Hawes, Andrew P Bontemps, William P Wagner, Peter S Hendricks, Adrienne C Lahti, Andres Azuero, Karen L Cropsey

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Elizabeth S HawesDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Andrew P BontempsUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
William P WagnerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Peter S HendricksDepartment of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Adrienne C LahtiDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Andres AzueroDepartment of Nursing, Family, Community & Health Systems, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Karen L CropseyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. Electronic address: kcropsey@uabmc.edu.

Funding

In Vivo Experience with NRT to Increase Adherence and Smoking AbstinenceR01DA039678 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI CROPSEY, KAREN L · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA039678
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDue to the COVD-19 pandemic, many ongoing clinical trials had to rapidly shift to using remote trials, including our smoking cessation trial within a criminal legal population. The objective of this study was to compare recruitment rate, study adherence, retention, nicotine replacement therapy adherence, and quit attempts between participants who completed the study as planned (In-Person; N = 236), after implementation of a voucher system and additional check-in appointments (Incentivized; N = 126), and after the pandemic began (Hybrid; N = 153).

methods515 participants were recruited with criminal legal involvement from Birmingham, AL, and randomized to an In Vivo nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling group or a standard smoking cessation counseling group, with both groups receiving 12 weeks of NRT.

resultsThere were no significant differences in any of the study outcomes between the methodology groups, suggesting that hybrid methods of research do not result in a slower recruitment pace, less visits attended, or a higher likelihood of drop-out. Completing the study remotely did not appear to impact study outcomes such as likelihood of making a quit attempt or using NRT.

conclusionsThis study suggests that remote methods may be as effective as in-person methods in a clinical trial, although a randomized trial of these methods is needed.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionSmoking CessationTobacco Use Cessation DevicesAdultCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceCriminal legal supervisionNicotine replacement therapyRemote interventionSmoking cessationSnowball recruitmentStudy retention

Identifiers

PMID41353912
PMCPMC12837019

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.