Remote Patient Monitoring and Incentives to Support Smoking Cessation Among Pregnant and Postpartum Medicaid Members: Three Randomized Controlled Pilot Studies

Caroline M Joyce, Kathryn Saulsgiver, Salini Mohanty, Chethan Bachireddy, Carin Molfetta, Mary Steffy, Alice Yoder, Alison M Buttenheim, Caroline M Joyce, Kathryn Saulsgiver, Salini Mohanty, Chethan Bachireddy, Carin Molfetta, Mary Steffy, Alice Yoder, Alison M Buttenheim

Abstract

Background: Smoking rates among low-income individuals, including those eligible for Medicaid, have not shown the same decrease that is observed among high-income individuals. The rate of smoking among pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid is almost twice that among privately insured women, which leads to significant disparities in birth outcomes and a disproportionate cost burden placed on Medicaid. Several states have identified maternal smoking as a key target for improving birth outcomes and reducing health care expenditures; however, efficacious, cost-effective, and feasible cessation programs have been elusive.

Objective: This study aims to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a smartwatch-enabled, incentive-based smoking cessation program for Medicaid-eligible pregnant smokers.

Methods: Pilot 1 included a randomized pilot study of smartwatch-enabled remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring for 12 weeks. Those in the intervention group also received the SmokeBeat program. Pilot 2 included a randomized pilot study of pay-to-wear versus pay-to-quit for 4 weeks. Those in a pay-to-wear program could earn daily incentives for wearing the smartwatch, whereas those in pay-to-quit program could earn daily incentives if they wore the smartwatch and abstained from smoking. Pilot 3, similar to pilot 2, had higher incentives and a duration of 3 weeks.

Results: For pilot 1 (N=27), self-reported cigarettes per week among the intervention group declined by 15.1 (SD 27) cigarettes over the study; a similar reduction was observed in the control group with a decrease of 17.2 (SD 19) cigarettes. For pilot 2 (N=8), self-reported cigarettes per week among the pay-to-wear group decreased by 43 cigarettes (SD 12.6); a similar reduction was seen in the pay-to-quit group, with an average of 31 (SD 45.6) fewer cigarettes smoked per week. For pilot 3 (N=4), one participant in the pay-to-quit group abstained from smoking for the full study duration and received full incentives.

Conclusions: Decreases in smoking were observed in both the control and intervention groups during all pilots. The use of the SmokeBeat program did not significantly improve cessation. The SmokeBeat program, remote cotinine testing, and remote delivery of financial incentives were considered feasible and acceptable. Implementation challenges remain for providing evidence-based cessation incentives to low-income pregnant smokers. The feasibility and acceptability of the SmokeBeat program were moderately high. Moreover, the feasibility and acceptability of remote cotinine testing and the remotely delivered contingent financial incentives were successful.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03209557; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03209557.

Keywords: financial incentives; incentives; mHealth; maternal smoking; mobile health; mobile phone; postpartum; pregnant; smart devices; smoking; smoking cessation.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Caroline M Joyce, Kathryn Saulsgiver, Salini Mohanty, Chethan Bachireddy, Carin Molfetta, Mary Steffy, Alice Yoder, Alison M Buttenheim. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 30.09.2021.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pilot 1: self-reported cigarettes smoked per week by group.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pilot 1: percentage of tested participants with a negative saliva (A) and urine (B) cotinine test by week and intervention group (intervention maximum: N=14, control maximum: N=7).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pilot 2: self-reported cigarettes smoked per week by intervention group. PTQ: pay-to-quit; PTW: pay-to-wear.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Pilot 2: average number of hours watch worn for each study day by arm (includes days with no watch wearing). PTQ: pay-to-quit; PTW: pay-to-wear.

References

    1. Adams EK, Miller VP, Ernst C, Nishimura BK, Melvin C, Merritt R. Neonatal health care costs related to smoking during pregnancy. Health Econ. 2002 Apr;11(3):193–206. doi: 10.1002/hec.660.10.1002/hec.660
    1. Dietz PM, England LJ, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Tong VT, Farr SL, Callaghan WM. Infant morbidity and mortality attributable to prenatal smoking in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2010 Jul;39(1):45–52. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.03.009.S0749-3797(10)00258-8
    1. Salihu HM, Wilson RE. Epidemiology of prenatal smoking and perinatal outcomes. Early Hum Dev. 2007 Nov;83(11):713–20. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.08.002.S0378-3782(07)00124-7
    1. Garrett BE, Dube SR, Babb S, McAfee T. Addressing the social determinants of health to reduce tobacco-related disparities. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 Aug;17(8):892–7. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu266. ntu266
    1. Kornhauser M, Schneiderman R. How plans can improve outcomes and cut costs for preterm infant care. Manag Care. 2010 Jan;19(1):28–30.
    1. McCallum DM, Fosson GH, Pisu M. Making the case for medicaid funding of smoking cessation treatment programs: an application to state-level health care savings. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014 Nov;25(4):1922–40. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2014.0171.S1548686914400329
    1. Cantor J, Tallia A. Analysis and recommendations for Medicaid high utilizers in New Jersey. Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences. 2016. Jan, [2021-08-09]. .
    1. State Medicaid coverage for tobacco-dependence treatments --- United States, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2009. [2021-08-09]. .
    1. Cahill K, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera R. Incentives for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 18;(5):CD004307. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004307.pub5.
    1. Notley C, Gentry S, Livingstone-Banks J, Bauld L, Perera R, Hartmann-Boyce J. Incentives for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 17;7(7):CD004307. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004307.pub6.
    1. Tappin D, Bauld L, Purves D, Boyd K, Sinclair L, MacAskill S, McKell J, Friel B, McConnachie A, de Caestecker L, Tannahill C, Radley A, Coleman T, Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial Team Financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2015 Jan 27;350:h134. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h134.
    1. Lussier JP, Heil SH, Mongeon JA, Badger GJ, Higgins ST. A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction. 2006 Feb;101(2):192–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01311.x.ADD1311
    1. Do incentives work for Medicaid members? Wisconsin Department of Health Services. [2021-08-09]. .
    1. Dar R. Effect of real-time monitoring and notification of smoking episodes on smoking reduction: a pilot study of a novel smoking cessation app. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018 Nov 15;20(12):1515–8. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntx223.4582712
    1. Marler JD, Fujii CA, Utley DS, Tesfamariam LJ, Galanko JA, Patrick H. Initial assessment of a comprehensive digital smoking cessation program that incorporates a mobile app, breath sensor, and coaching: cohort study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 04;7(2):e12609. doi: 10.2196/12609. v7i2e12609
    1. Morriscey C, Shephard A, van Houdt A, Kerr D, Barrett SP. Using ‘Smart’ technology to aid in cigarette smoking cessation: examining an innovative way to monitor and improve quit attempt outcomes. J Smok Cessat. 2018 Sep 25;14(3):149–54. doi: 10.1017/jsc.2018.33.
    1. Patrick H, Fujii CA, Glaser DB, Utley DS, Marler JD. A comprehensive digital program for smoking cessation: assessing feasibility in a single-group cohort study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Dec 18;6(12):e11708. doi: 10.2196/11708. v6i12e11708
    1. Mullainathan S, Shafir E. Scarcity : Why Having Too Little Means So Much. First edition. New York: Times Books; 2013. pp. 1–304.
    1. Crozier SR, Robinson SM, Borland SE, Godfrey KM, Cooper C, Inskip HM, Study Group SW. Do women change their health behaviours in pregnancy? Findings from the Southampton Women's Survey. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;23(5):446–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01036.x. PPE1036
    1. Volpp KG, Troxel AB, Pauly MV, Glick HA, Puig A, Asch DA, Galvin R, Zhu J, Wan F, DeGuzman J, Corbett E, Weiner J, Audrain-McGovern J. A randomized, controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 12;360(7):699–709. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0806819.360/7/699
    1. Baker TB, Fraser DL, Kobinsky K, Adsit R, Smith SS, Khalil L, Alaniz KM, Sullivan TE, Johnson ML, Fiore MC. A randomized controlled trial of financial incentives to low income pregnant women to engage in smoking cessation treatment: effects on post-birth abstinence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018 May;86(5):464–73. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000278.2018-04369-001
    1. Gale RC, Wu J, Erhardt T, Bounthavong M, Reardon CM, Damschroder LJ, Midboe AM. Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci. 2019 Feb 01;14(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0853-y. 10.1186/s13012-019-0853-y
    1. Holdsworth LM, Safaeinili N, Winget M, Lorenz KA, Lough M, Asch S, Malcolm E. Adapting rapid assessment procedures for implementation research using a team-based approach to analysis: a case example of patient quality and safety interventions in the ICU. Implement Sci. 2020 Feb 22;15(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-0972-5. 10.1186/s13012-020-0972-5
    1. Zhang X, Devasia R, Czarnecki G, Frechette J, Russell S, Behringer B. Effects of incentive-based smoking cessation program for pregnant women on birth outcomes. Matern Child Health J. 2017 Apr;21(4):745–51. doi: 10.1007/s10995-016-2166-y. 10.1007/s10995-016-2166-y

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir