Adherence to Blended or Face-to-Face Smoking Cessation Treatment and Predictors of Adherence: Randomized Controlled Trial.


Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 07 2020
Historique:
received: 03 12 2019
accepted: 15 04 2020
revised: 23 03 2020
pubmed: 28 5 2020
medline: 9 1 2021
entrez: 28 5 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Blended face-to-face and web-based treatment is a promising way to deliver smoking cessation treatment. Since adherence has been shown to be an indicator of treatment acceptability and a determinant for effectiveness, we explored and compared adherence and predictors of adherence to blended and face-to-face alone smoking cessation treatments with similar content and intensity. The objectives of this study were (1) to compare adherence to a blended smoking cessation treatment with adherence to a face-to-face treatment; (2) to compare adherence within the blended treatment to its face-to-face mode and web mode; and (3) to determine baseline predictors of adherence to both treatments as well as (4) the predictors to both modes of the blended treatment. We calculated the total duration of treatment exposure for patients (N=292) of a Dutch outpatient smoking cessation clinic who were randomly assigned either to the blended smoking cessation treatment (n=130) or to a face-to-face treatment with identical components (n=162). For both treatments (blended and face-to-face) and for the two modes of delivery within the blended treatment (face-to-face vs web mode), adherence levels (ie, treatment time) were compared and the predictors of adherence were identified within 33 demographic, smoking-related, and health-related patient characteristics. We found no significant difference in adherence between the blended and the face-to-face treatments. Participants in the blended treatment group spent an average of 246 minutes in treatment (median 106.7% of intended treatment time, IQR 150%-355%) and participants in the face-to-face group spent 238 minutes (median 103.3% of intended treatment time, IQR 150%-330%). Within the blended group, adherence to the face-to-face mode was twice as high as that to the web mode. Participants in the blended group spent an average of 198 minutes (SD 120) in face-to-face mode (152% of the intended treatment time) and 75 minutes (SD 53) in web mode (75% of the intended treatment time). Higher age was the only characteristic consistently found to uniquely predict higher adherence in both the blended and face-to-face groups. For the face-to-face group, more social support for smoking cessation was also predictive of higher adherence. The variability in adherence explained by these predictors was rather low (blended R This study represents one of the first attempts to thoroughly compare adherence and predictors of adherence of a blended smoking cessation treatment to an equivalent face-to-face treatment. Interestingly, although the overall adherence to both treatments appeared to be high, adherence within the blended treatment was much higher for the face-to-face mode than for the web mode. This supports the idea that in blended treatment, one mode of delivery can compensate for the weaknesses of the other. Higher age was found to be a common predictor of adherence to the treatments. The low variance in adherence predicted by the characteristics examined in this study suggests that other variables such as provider-related health system factors and time-varying patient characteristics should be explored in future research. Netherlands Trial Register NTR5113; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5113.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Blended face-to-face and web-based treatment is a promising way to deliver smoking cessation treatment. Since adherence has been shown to be an indicator of treatment acceptability and a determinant for effectiveness, we explored and compared adherence and predictors of adherence to blended and face-to-face alone smoking cessation treatments with similar content and intensity.
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study were (1) to compare adherence to a blended smoking cessation treatment with adherence to a face-to-face treatment; (2) to compare adherence within the blended treatment to its face-to-face mode and web mode; and (3) to determine baseline predictors of adherence to both treatments as well as (4) the predictors to both modes of the blended treatment.
METHODS
We calculated the total duration of treatment exposure for patients (N=292) of a Dutch outpatient smoking cessation clinic who were randomly assigned either to the blended smoking cessation treatment (n=130) or to a face-to-face treatment with identical components (n=162). For both treatments (blended and face-to-face) and for the two modes of delivery within the blended treatment (face-to-face vs web mode), adherence levels (ie, treatment time) were compared and the predictors of adherence were identified within 33 demographic, smoking-related, and health-related patient characteristics.
RESULTS
We found no significant difference in adherence between the blended and the face-to-face treatments. Participants in the blended treatment group spent an average of 246 minutes in treatment (median 106.7% of intended treatment time, IQR 150%-355%) and participants in the face-to-face group spent 238 minutes (median 103.3% of intended treatment time, IQR 150%-330%). Within the blended group, adherence to the face-to-face mode was twice as high as that to the web mode. Participants in the blended group spent an average of 198 minutes (SD 120) in face-to-face mode (152% of the intended treatment time) and 75 minutes (SD 53) in web mode (75% of the intended treatment time). Higher age was the only characteristic consistently found to uniquely predict higher adherence in both the blended and face-to-face groups. For the face-to-face group, more social support for smoking cessation was also predictive of higher adherence. The variability in adherence explained by these predictors was rather low (blended R
CONCLUSIONS
This study represents one of the first attempts to thoroughly compare adherence and predictors of adherence of a blended smoking cessation treatment to an equivalent face-to-face treatment. Interestingly, although the overall adherence to both treatments appeared to be high, adherence within the blended treatment was much higher for the face-to-face mode than for the web mode. This supports the idea that in blended treatment, one mode of delivery can compensate for the weaknesses of the other. Higher age was found to be a common predictor of adherence to the treatments. The low variance in adherence predicted by the characteristics examined in this study suggests that other variables such as provider-related health system factors and time-varying patient characteristics should be explored in future research.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Netherlands Trial Register NTR5113; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5113.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32459643
pii: v22i7e17207
doi: 10.2196/17207
pmc: PMC7413278
doi:

Banques de données

NTR
['NTR5113']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e17207

Informations de copyright

©Lutz Siemer, Marjolein G J Brusse-Keizer, Marloes G Postel, Somaya Ben Allouch, Robbert Sanderman, Marcel E Pieterse. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 23.07.2020.

Références

Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;162(6):1158-64
pubmed: 15930065
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 13;17(1):218
pubmed: 28610561
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Aug 01;20(8):e246
pubmed: 30068503
Trials. 2012 Aug 01;13:123
pubmed: 22852802
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2001 May;76(5):349-54
pubmed: 11359183
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 21;16:113
pubmed: 27102812
Arch Intern Med. 1997 Feb 10;157(3):335-40
pubmed: 9040302
Nicotine Tob Res. 2009 May;11(5):514-8
pubmed: 19351783
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 24;3:CD008286
pubmed: 27009521
BMC Psychiatry. 2013 Nov 07;13:296
pubmed: 24199672
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Jan 27;13(1):e11
pubmed: 21273184
JMIR Form Res. 2020 Jun 3;4(6):e14550
pubmed: 32343245
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Oct 18;14:290
pubmed: 25326035
Trials. 2016 Aug 03;17(1):387
pubmed: 27488181
Internet Interv. 2017 Apr 13;8:63-71
pubmed: 30135830
eHealth Int. 2002 Sep 17;1(1):4
pubmed: 12459044
Nicotine Tob Res. 2013 Feb;15(2):393-400
pubmed: 22949577
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2016;58(5):361-70
pubmed: 27213635
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 31;3:CD001292
pubmed: 28361496
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD006611
pubmed: 19821377
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015 Aug 1;153:167-72
pubmed: 26077603
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95
pubmed: 23512568
Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Aug;170(8):929-30
pubmed: 23903340
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 10;4:CD006611
pubmed: 27060875
JMIR Ment Health. 2016 Feb 09;3(1):e9
pubmed: 26860537
Am J Health Promot. 2011 Nov-Dec;26(2):90-5
pubmed: 22040389
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Dec 10;15(12):e280
pubmed: 24326065
J Med Internet Res. 2005 Feb 24;7(1):e1
pubmed: 15829471
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Dec 14;14:355
pubmed: 25496393
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 10;(7):CD007078
pubmed: 23839868
Nicotine Tob Res. 2010 Jun;12(6):574-81
pubmed: 20457644
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Sep 15;19(9):e306
pubmed: 28916506
Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999 Jan 7;53(2):159-65
pubmed: 10080041
BMC Public Health. 2016 Nov 24;16(1):1187
pubmed: 27881108
Addict Behav. 2014 Jun;39(6):1066-74
pubmed: 24629480
J Affect Disord. 2011 Mar;129(1-3):117-25
pubmed: 20889214
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 04;9:CD007078
pubmed: 28869775

Auteurs

Lutz Siemer (L)

Technology, Health & Care Research Group, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, Netherlands.
Centre for eHealth and Well-being Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Marjolein G J Brusse-Keizer (MGJ)

Medical School Twente, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Marloes G Postel (MG)

Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Tactus Addiction Treatment, Enschede, Netherlands.

Somaya Ben Allouch (S)

Digital Life Research Group, Amsterdam University of Applied Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Robbert Sanderman (R)

Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Department of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Marcel E Pieterse (ME)

Centre for eHealth and Well-being Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH