Heterogeneity in the Effects of Reward- and Deposit-based Financial Incentives on Smoking Cessation

Effects of short-term nicotine deprivation on delay discounting among young, experienced, exclusive ENDS users: An initial study

Delay discounting describes how rapidly delayed rewards lose value as a function of delay and serves as one measure of impulsive decision-making. Nicotine deprivation among combustible cigarette smokers can increase delay discounting. We aimed to explore changes in discounting following nicotine deprivation among electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) users. Thirty young adults (aged 18-24 years) that exclusively used ENDS participated in two laboratory sessions: one with vaping as usual and another after 16 hr of nicotine deprivation (biochemically assessed). At each session, participants completed a craving measure and three hypothetical delay discounting tasks presenting choices between small, immediate rewards and large, delayed ones (money-money; e-liquid-e-liquid; e-liquid-money). Craving for ENDS significantly increased during short-term nicotine deprivation relative to normal vaping. Delay discounting rates in the e-liquid now versus money later task increased (indicating a shift in preference for smaller, immediate rewards) following short-term nicotine deprivation relative to vaping as usual, but no changes were observed in the other two discounting tasks. Short-term nicotine deprivation increased the preference for smaller amounts of e-liquid delivered immediately over larger, monetary awards available after a delay in this first study of its kind. As similar preference shifts for drug now versus money later have been shown to be indicative of increased desire to use drug as well as relapse risk, the findings support the utility of the current model as a platform to explore interventions that can mitigate these preference shifts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Designing financial incentives for health behaviour change: a mixed-methods case study of weight loss in men with obesity

Aim

Designing financial incentives for health behaviour change requires choices across several domains, including value (the size of the incentive), frequency of incentives, and direction (gain or loss). However, the rationale underlying complex incentive design is infrequently reported. Transparent reporting is important if we want to understand and improve the incentive development process. This paper describes a mixed methods approach for designing financial incentives for health behaviour change which involves stakeholders throughout the design process.

Subject and methods

The mixed methods approach focuses on incentives for weight loss for men with obesity living in areas with high levels of disadvantage. The approach involves: (a) using an existing framework to identify all domains of a financial incentive scheme for which choices need to be made, deciding what criteria are relevant (such as effectiveness, acceptability and uptake) and making choices on each domain on the basis of the criteria; (b) conducting a survey of target population preferences to inform choices for domains and to design the incentive scheme; and (c) making final decisions at a stakeholder consensus workshop.

Results

The approach was implemented and an incentive scheme for weight loss for men living with obesity was developed. Qualitative interview data from men receiving the incentives in a feasibility trial endorses our approach.

Conclusion

This paper demonstrates that a mixed methods approach with stakeholder involvement can be used to design financial incentives for health behaviour change such as weight loss.

Trial registration number

NCT03040518. Date: 2 February 2017.

Ubiquitous bias and false discovery due to model misspecification in analysis of statistical interactions: The role of the outcome's distribution and metric properties

Studies of interaction effects are of great interest because they identify crucial interplay between predictors in explaining outcomes. Previous work has considered several potential sources of statistical bias and substantive misinterpretation in the study of interactions, but less attention has been devoted to the role of the outcome variable in such research. Here, we consider bias and false discovery associated with estimates of interaction parameters as a function of the distributional and metric properties of the outcome variable. We begin by illustrating that, for a variety of noncontinuously distributed outcomes (i.e., binary and count outcomes), attempts to use the linear model for recovery leads to catastrophic levels of bias and false discovery. Next, focusing on transformations of normally distributed variables (i.e., censoring and noninterval scaling), we show that linear models again produce spurious interaction effects. We provide explanations offering geometric and algebraic intuition as to why interactions are a challenge for these incorrectly specified models. In light of these findings, we make two specific recommendations. First, a careful consideration of the outcome's distributional properties should be a standard component of interaction studies. Second, researchers should approach research focusing on interactions with heightened levels of scrutiny. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Cohort profile for the Loma Linda University Health BREATHE programme: a model to study continuously incentivised employee smoking cessation

PURPOSE

The purpose of the Loma Linda University Health (LLUH) BREATHE cohort is to test the efficacy of a novel method of continuously incentivising participation in workplace smoking cessation on participation, long-term abstinence, health outcomes, healthcare costs and healthcare utilisation.

PARTICIPANTS

In 2014, LLUH-a US academic medical centre and university-incentivised participation in a workplace smoking cessation programme (LLUH BREATHE) by lowering health plan costs. Specifically, LLUH introduced a Wholeness Health Plan (WHP) option that, for the smokers, continuously incentivises participation in nicotine screening and the LLUH BREATHE smoking cessation programme by offering an 'opt-in wellness discount' that consisted of 50%-53% lower out of pocket health plan costs (ie, monthly employee premiums, copayments). This novel 'continuously incentivised' model lowers annual health plan costs for smokers who, on an annual basis, attempt or maintain cessation from tobacco use. The annual WHP cost savings for smokers far exceed the value of short-term incentives that have been tested in workplace cessation trials to date. This ongoing health plan option offered to over 16 000 employees has created an open, dynamic LLUH BREATHE cohort of current and former smokers (n=1092).

FINDINGS TO DATE

Our profile of the LLUH BREATHE cohort indicates that after 5 years of follow-up in a prospective cohort study (2014-2019), continuously incentivised smoking cessation produced a 74% participation (95% CI (71% to 77%)) in employer-sponsored smoking cessation attempts that were occurring less than a year after the incentive was offered. The cohort can be purposed to examine the effect of continuously incentivised cessation on cessation outcomes, health plan utilisation/costs, use of electronic nicotine delivery systems, and COVID-19 outcomes.

Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the Intensive Care Unit Trial Protocol

Expert recommendations to discuss prognosis and offer palliative options for critically ill patients at high risk of death are variably heeded by intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. How to best promote such communication to avoid potentially unwanted aggressive care is unknown. The PONDER-ICU (Prognosticating Outcomes and Nudging Decisions with Electronic Records in the ICU) study is a 33-month pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of two electronic health record (EHR) interventions designed to increase ICU clinicians' engagement of critically ill patients at high risk of death and their caregivers in discussions about all treatment options, including care focused on comfort. We hypothesize that the quality of care and patient-centered outcomes can be improved by requiring ICU clinicians to document a functional prognostic estimate (intervention A) and/or to provide justification if they have not offered patients the option of comfort-focused care (intervention B). The trial enrolls all adult patients admitted to 17 ICUs in 10 hospitals in North Carolina with a preexisting life-limiting illness and acute respiratory failure requiring continuous mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. Eligibility is determined using a validated algorithm in the EHR. The sequence in which hospitals transition from usual care (control), to intervention A or B and then to combined interventions A + B, is randomly assigned. The primary outcome is hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes include other clinical outcomes, palliative care process measures, and nurse-assessed quality of dying and death.Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03139838).

Incentive programmes for smoking cessation: cluster randomized trial in workplaces in Thailand

OBJECTIVE

To compare several monetary incentive programmes for promoting smoking abstinence among employees who smoke at workplaces in a middle income country.

DESIGN

Parallel group, open label, assessor blinded, cluster randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Large industrial workplaces in metropolitan Bangkok, Thailand.

PARTICIPANTS

Employees who smoked cigarettes and planned to quit within six months recruited from 101 worksite clusters (84 different companies).

INTERVENTIONS

Worksites were digitally cluster randomized by an independent investigator to usual care or usual care plus one of eight types of incentive programmes. Usual care consisted of one time group counseling and cessation support through a 28 day text messaging programme. The incentive programmes depended on abstinence at three months and varied on three intervention components: refundable deposits, assignment to a teammate, and bonus size ($20 (£15; €17) or $40).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was biochemically verified seven day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were programme acceptance at enrollment and smoking abstinence at three months (end of intervention) and at six months. All randomized participants who had complete baseline information were included in intention-to-treat analyses; participants with missing outcomes were coded as continuing smokers.

RESULTS

Between April 2015 and August 2016, the trial enrolled 4190 participants. Eighteen were omitted because of missing baseline covariates and death before the primary endpoint, therefore 4172 participants were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Programme acceptance was relatively high across all groups: 58.7% (2451/4172) overall and 61.3% (271/442) in the usual care group. Abstinence rates at 12 months did not differ among deposit programmes (336/2253, 14.9%) and non-deposit programmes (280/1919, 14.6%; adjusted difference 0.8 points, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 4.3, P=0.65), but were somewhat lower for team based programmes (176/1348, 13.1%) than individual based programmes (440/2824, 15.6%; -3.2 points, -6.6 to -0.2, P=0.07), and higher for $40 bonus programmes (322/1954, 16.5%) than programmes with no bonus (148/1198, 12.4%; 5.9 points, 2.1 to 9.7, P=0.002). The $40 individual bonus was the most efficacious randomization group at all endpoints. Intervention components did not strongly interact with each other.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of monetary incentive programmes for promoting smoking abstinence was high across all groups. The $40 individual bonus programmes increased long term smoking abstinence compared with usual care, although several other incentive designs did not, such as team based programmes and deposit programmes. Incentive design in workplace wellness programmes might influence their effectiveness at reducing smoking rates in low resource settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02421224).

PERSonalised Incentives for Supporting Tobacco cessation (PERSIST) among healthcare employees: a randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the primary preventable risk factor for disease and premature mortality. It is highly addictive and cessation attempts are often unsuccessful. Incentive-based programmes may be an effective method to reach sustained abstinence. Individualisation of incentives based on personal characteristics yields potential to further increase the effectiveness of incentive-based programmes.

METHOD

A randomised controlled trial among healthcare workers recruited through their employer and signed up for a group-based smoking cessation programme. The intervention under study is the provision of personalised incentives on validated smoking cessation at several time points after the smoking cessation programme. A total of 220 participants are required. Participants are randomised 1:1 into intervention (personalised incentives) or control (no incentives). All participants join the group-based programme. Incentives are provided on validated abstinence directly after the smoking cessation programme and after 3, 6 and 12 months.Incentives are provided according to four schemes:(1) Standard: total reward size €350, pay-out scheme: €50 (t=0), €50 (t=3 months), €50 (t=6 months) and €200 (t=12 months), (2) descending: total reward size €300, pay-out scheme: €150, €100, €50 and €0, (3) ascending: total reward size: €400, pay-out scheme: €0, €0, €50 and €350 and (4) deposit: total reward size €450, pay-out scheme: €50, €50, €150, €200; participants pay a €100 deposit, returned conditional on abstinence after 6 months.Advice on which incentive scheme suits participants best is based on willingness to provide a deposit, readiness to quit, nicotine dependency and long-term or short-term reward preference. Participants are free to deviate from this advice. Abstinence is validated at each time point, with 15 months of total follow-up. The primary end point is validated abstinence at 12 months. Effectiveness will be determined by intention-to-treat analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Erasmus MC Medical Ethics Committee decided that according to the Dutch Human Research Law (WMO), the protocol required no formal ethical approval. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and communicated to the participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands Trial Register NL7711.

Participation in a workplace smoking cessation program incentivized by lowering the cost of health care coverage: Findings from the LLUH BREATHE cohort

INTRODUCTION

Systematic analyses of workplace smoking cessation programs indicate that efficacy can be enhanced by using incentives. There is variation in the type of incentives used and their effect on participation and efficacy. The aim of our study was to examine whether lowering employee health plan costs (employee contributions, co-pays) encourage employee smokers to participate in workplace smoking cessation.

METHODS

We conducted a 2014-2015 prospective cohort study of 415 employee smokers of Loma Linda University Health (LLUH). The employees were offered participation in a workplace smoking cessation program (LLUH BREATHE Initiative) with the incentive of enrollment in an employer-provided health plan that had a 50% lower employee monthly contribution and co-payment relative to the employer-provided health plan for non-participants. Participation rates and variables associated with participation were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the LLUH BREATHE cohort, we found a very high rate of participation (72.7%; 95% CI: 69-77%) in workplace smoking cessation that was encouraged by a lower out-of-pocket health plan cost for the participating employee and/or spouse. Participation did, however, vary by gender and spouse, whereby female employee households with a qualifying smoker were more than two times more likely (employee: OR=2.89, 95% CI: 1.59-5.24; or spouse: OR=2.71, 95% CI: 1.47-5.00) to participate in smoking cessation than male employee households. The point prevalence, at four months, of abstinence from smoking among the participants was 48% (95% CI: 42-54%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that a workplace smoking cessation program that uses a novel reward-based incentive of lower out-of-pocket health plan costs results in a participation rate that is much higher than US norms.

A Pragmatic Trial of E-Cigarettes, Incentives, and Drugs for Smoking Cessation

BACKGROUND

Whether financial incentives, pharmacologic therapies, and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) promote smoking cessation among unselected smokers is unknown.

METHODS

We randomly assigned smokers employed by 54 companies to one of four smoking-cessation interventions or to usual care. Usual care consisted of access to information regarding the benefits of smoking cessation and to a motivational text-messaging service. The four interventions consisted of usual care plus one of the following: free cessation aids (nicotine-replacement therapy or pharmacotherapy, with e-cigarettes if standard therapies failed); free e-cigarettes, without a requirement that standard therapies had been tried; free cessation aids plus $600 in rewards for sustained abstinence; or free cessation aids plus $600 in redeemable funds, deposited in a separate account for each participant, with money removed from the account if cessation milestones were not met. The primary outcome was sustained smoking abstinence for 6 months after the target quit date.

RESULTS

Among 6131 smokers who were invited to enroll, 125 opted out and 6006 underwent randomization. Sustained abstinence rates through 6 months were 0.1% in the usual-care group, 0.5% in the free cessation aids group, 1.0% in the free e-cigarettes group, 2.0% in the rewards group, and 2.9% in the redeemable deposit group. With respect to sustained abstinence rates, redeemable deposits and rewards were superior to free cessation aids (P<0.001 and P=0.006, respectively, with significance levels adjusted for multiple comparisons). Redeemable deposits were superior to free e-cigarettes (P=0.008). Free e-cigarettes were not superior to usual care (P=0.20) or to free cessation aids (P=0.43). Among the 1191 employees (19.8%) who actively participated in the trial (the "engaged" cohort), sustained abstinence rates were four to six times as high as those among participants who did not actively engage in the trial, with similar relative effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pragmatic trial of smoking cessation, financial incentives added to free cessation aids resulted in a higher rate of sustained smoking abstinence than free cessation aids alone. Among smokers who received usual care (information and motivational text messages), the addition of free cessation aids or e-cigarettes did not provide a benefit. (Funded by the Vitality Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02328794 .).

Supporting a Culture of Health in the Workplace: A Review of Evidence-Based Elements

OBJECTIVE

To identify and evaluate the evidence base for culture of health elements.

DATA SOURCE

Multiple databases were systematically searched to identify research studies published between 1990 and 2015 on culture of health elements.

STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Researchers included studies based on the following criteria: (1) conducted in a worksite setting; (2) applied and evaluated 1 or more culture of health elements; and (3) reported 1 or more health or safety factors.

DATA EXTRACTION

Eleven researchers screened the identified studies with abstraction conducted by a primary and secondary reviewer. Of the 1023 articles identified, 10 research reviews and 95 standard studies were eligible and abstracted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data synthesis focused on research approach and design as well as culture of health elements evaluated.

RESULTS

The majority of published studies reviewed were identified as quantitative studies (62), whereas fewer were qualitative (27), research reviews (10), or other study approaches. Three of the most frequently studied culture of health elements were built environment (25), policies and procedures (28), and communications (27). Although all studies included a health or safety factor, not all reported a statistically significant outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable number of cross-sectional studies demonstrated significant and salient correlations between culture of health elements and the health and safety of employees, but more research is needed to examine causality.

Incentives and Big E Engagement

The kind of engagement industrial psychologists have shown can produce optimal performance relates more to a state of mind than to increasing participation in programs or motivating a workforce with financial incentives. In the context of quality improvement methodologies, the health promotion profession has yet to discover when, where and how large financial incentives should be and how they best fit in our processes. That is, there is no “standard work” for the use of extrinsic motivators. Yet, to argue against incentives given evidence to date has more to do with polemics than science.

Time to selected quit date and subsequent rates of sustained smoking abstinence

In efforts to combat tobacco dependence, most smoking cessation programs offer individuals who smoke the choice of a target quit date. However, it is uncertain whether the time to the selected quit date is associated with participants' chances of achieving sustained abstinence. In a pre-specified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of four financial-incentive programs or usual care to encourage smoking cessation (Halpern et al. in N Engl J Med 372(22):2108-2117, doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414293 , 2015), study participants were instructed to select a quit date between 0 and 90 days from enrollment. Among those who selected a quit date and provided complete baseline data (n = 1848), we used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association of the time to the selected quit date with 6- and 12-month biochemically-confirmed abstinence rates. In the fully adjusted model, the probability of being abstinent at 6 months if the participant selected a quit date in weeks 1, 5, 10, and 13 were 39.6, 22.6, 10.9, and 4.3%, respectively.