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.
KeywordsTobacco dependence Smoking cessation Quit date Sustained abstinence Stage-of-change Readiness-to-quit
This work was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (T32HL098054 to GLA; R01CA159932 to SDH, MOH, and KGV; and F31HL127947 to MOH). CVS Caremark provided in-kind support only (CVS employees directly assisted with recruitment of study participants in the original trial).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
George L. Anesi, Scott D. Halpern, Michael O. Harhay, Kevin G. Volpp, and Kathryn Saulsgiver declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and animal right and Informed consent
All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania (IRB Protocol #814761) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards, and registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (Protocol #NCT01526265). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Alessi, S. M., & Petry, N. M. (2014). Smoking reductions and increased self-efficacy in a randomized controlled trial of smoking abstinence–contingent incentives in residential substance abuse treatment patients. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16, 1436–1445. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Danaei, G., Ding, E. L., Mozaffarian, D., Taylor, B., Rehm, J., Murray, C. J. L., et al. (2009). The preventable causes of death in the United States: Comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors. Plos Medicine, 6, e1000058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000058 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Dragalin, V. (2006). Adaptive designs: Terminology and classification. Drug Information Journal, 40, 425–435.Google Scholar
- Halpern, S. D., French, B., Small, D. S., Saulsgiver, K., Harhay, M. O., Audrain-McGovern, J., et al. (2015). Randomized trial of four financial-incentive programs for smoking cessation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 2108–2117. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414293 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Halpern, S. D., French, B., Small, D. S., Saulsgiver, K., Harhay, M. O., Audrain-McGovern, J., et al. (2016). Heterogeneity in the effects of reward- and deposit-based financial incentives on smoking cessation. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 194, 981–988. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201601-0108OC CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). E-cigarette use among youth and young adults. A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.Google Scholar
- Zhu, S. H., Lee, M., Zhuang, Y. L., Gamst, A., & Wolfson, T. (2012). Interventions to increase smoking cessation at the population level: How much progress has been made in the last two decades? Tobacco Control, 21, 110–118. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050371 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar