Search

Abstract Background Most smokers do not receive comprehensive, evidence-based treatment for tobacco use that includes intensive behavioral counseling along with pharmacotherapy. Further, the use of proven, tobacco treatments is lower among minorities than among Whites. The primary objectives of this study are to: (1) Assess the effect of a proactive care intervention (PRO) on population-level smoking abstinence rates (i.e., abstinence among all smokers including those who use and do not utilize treatment) and on utilization of tobacco treatment compared to reactive/usual care (UC) among a diverse population of smokers, (2) Compare the effect of PRO on population-level smoking abstinence rates and utilization of tobacco treatments between African American and White smokers, and (3) Determine the cost-effectiveness of the proactive care intervention. Methods/Design This prospective randomized controlled trial identifies a population-based sample of current smokers from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic medical record health factor dataset. The proactive care intervention combines: (1) proactive outreach and (2) offer of choice of smoking cessation services (telephone or face-to-face). Proactive outreach includes mailed invitation materials followed by an outreach call that encourages smokers to seek treatment with choice of services. Proactive care participants who choose telephone care receive VA telephone counseling and access to pharmacotherapy. Proactive care participants who choose face-to-face care are referred to their VA facility's smoking cessation clinic. Usual care participants have access to standard smoking cessation services from their VA facility (e.g., pharmacotherapy, smoking cessation clinic) and from their state telephone quitline. Baseline data is collected from VA administrative databases and participant surveys. Outcomes from both groups are collected 12 months post-randomization from participant surveys and from VA administrative databases. The primary outcome is self-reported smoking abstinence, which is assessed at the population-level (i.e., among those who utilize and those who do not utilize tobacco treatment). Primary analyses will follow intention-to-treat methodology. Discussion This randomized trial is testing proactive outreach strategies offering choice of smoking cessation services, an innovation that if proven effective and cost-effective, will transform the way tobacco treatment is delivered. National dissemination of proactive treatment strategies could dramatically reduce tobacco-related morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Clinical trials registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00608426.

Abstract Background Maximizing response rates is critically important in order to provide the most generalizable and unbiased research results. High response rates reduce the chance of respondents being systematically different from non-respondents, and thus, reduce the risk of results not truly reflecting the study population. Monetary incentives are often used to improve response rates, but little is known about whether larger incentives improve response rates in those who previously have been unenthusiastic about participating in research. In this study we compared the response rates and cost-effectiveness of a $5 versus $2 monetary incentive accompanying a short survey mailed to patients who did not respond or refused to participate in research study with a face-to-face survey. Methods 1,328 non-responders were randomly assigned to receive $5 or $2 and a short, 10-question survey by mail. Reminder postcards were sent to everyone; those not returning the survey were sent a second survey without incentive. Overall response rates, response rates by incentive condition, and odds of responding to the larger incentive were calculated. Total costs (materials, postage, and labor) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were also calculated and compared by incentive condition. Results After the first mailing, the response rate within the $5 group was significantly higher (57.8% vs. 47.7%, p < .001); after the second mailing, the difference narrowed by 80%, resulting in a non-significant difference in cumulative rates between the $5 and $2 groups (67.3% vs. 65.4%, respectively, p = .47). Regardless of incentive or number of contacts, respondents were significantly more likely to be male, white, married, and 50-75 years old. Total costs were higher with the larger versus smaller incentive ($13.77 versus $9.95 per completed survey). Conclusions A $5 incentive provides a significantly higher response rate than a $2 incentive if only one survey mailing is used but not if two survey mailings are used.

Evidence‐based psychotherapies for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), such as cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure (CPT/PE), greatly reduce suffering for veterans, but many veterans fail to complete treatment. Developing a theory‐based understanding of adherence is necessary to inform interventions to improve treatment retention. We developed and tested a series of scales applying the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to CPT/PE adherence. The scales were administered in mailed surveys as part of a larger mixed‐methods study of veteran adherence to PE/CPT. Surveys were sent to 379 veterans who were initiating CPT/PE across four U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals and 207 of their loved ones. Subsequent session attendance and homework compliance were coded via a review of electronic medical records. We examined item‐level characteristics, factor structure, and the convergent and discriminant validity of the resultant scales. The findings support four subscales: two related to attitudes (i.e., Treatment Makes Sense and Treatment Fits Needs), one related to perceived behavioral control over participation (i.e., Participation Control), and one related to perceived family attitudes about CPT/PE participation (i.e., Subjective Norms). Scale validity was supported through significant associations with theoretically relevant constructs, including intentions to persist in CPT/PE, rs =.19–.38; treatment completion, rs =.21–.25; practical treatment barriers, rs = −.19 to −.24; and therapeutic alliance, rs =.39–.57. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Sleep disturbance may limit improvement in pain outcomes if not directly addressed in treatment. Moreover, sleep problems may be exacerbated by opioid therapy. This study examined the effects of baseline sleep disturbance on improvement in pain outcomes using data from the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial, a pragmatic 12-month randomized trial of opioid vs nonopioid medication therapy. Design. Participants with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain were randomized to either opioid therapy (N = 120) or nonopioid medication therapy (N = 120). Methods. We used mixed models for repeated measures to 1) test whether baseline sleep disturbance scores modified the effect of opioid vs nonopioid treatment on pain outcomes and 2) test baseline sleep disturbance scores as a predictor of less improvement in pain outcomes across both treatment groups. Results. The tests for interaction of sleep disturbance by treatment group were not significant. Higher sleep disturbance scores at baseline predicted less improvement in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference (b = 0.058, P = 0.0002) and BPI severity (b = 0.026, P = 0.0164). Conclusions. Baseline sleep disturbance adversely affects pain response to treatment regardless of analgesic regimen. Recognition and treatment of sleep impairments that frequently co-occur with pain may optimize outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]