Elsevier

Addictive Behaviors

Volume 64, January 2017, Pages 13-20
Addictive Behaviors

Predictors of retention in a randomised trial of smoking cessation in low-socioeconomic status Australian smokers,☆☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.07.019Get rights and content

Highlights

  • There is a paucity of evidence on the factors associated with low-SES populations retention in smoking cessation studies.

  • This study is the first to ascertain which factors were associated with retention of low-SES smokers in a smoking cessation trial and to examine the association between smoking-related, health-related, behavioural, sociodemographic and recruitment source and retention.

  • This paper identified a high retention rate of 84%.

  • Rigorous reminders and participant reimbursement can prevent high attrition rates in low-SES populations.

Abstract

Background and aims

Little is known about the factors associated with retention in smoking cessation trials, especially for low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) smokers. This study examined the factors associated with retention of low-SES smokers in the Australian Financial Interventions for Smoking Cessation Among Low-Income Smokers (FISCALS) trial.

Design

A two-group parallel block randomised open-label trial with allocation concealment.

Setting

Australia. The study was conducted primarily by telephone-based interviews with nicotine replacement therapy delivered via mail.

Participants

1047 low-SES smokers interested in quitting smoking were randomised.

Measurements

Participants completed computer assisted telephone interviews (CATIs) at baseline, 2-month and 8-month follow-up. Smoking-related, substance use, mental or physical health, general psychological constructs, sociodemographic and recruitment sources association with retention at 8-month follow-up were examined using binary logistic regression.

Findings

946 participants (90%) completed the 2-month follow-up interview and 880 participants (84%) completed the 8-month follow-up interview. Retention at 8-months was associated with higher motivation to quit (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.27 p < 0.01), more recent quit attempts (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.40 p < 0.05), increasing age (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.07 p < 0.01), and higher level of education (OR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.45, 3.46 p < 0.01). Lower retention at 8-months occurred for those participants recruited from posters placed in Department of Human Service Centrelink Offices (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.89, p < 0.05) compared to participants recruited from Quitline services. No significant differences in retention were found for participants recruited via newspaper advertisements or word of mouth compared to Quitline services. No significant associations were found between health-related or behavioural factors and retention.

Conclusions

In the context of high overall retention rates from disadvantaged smokers in a randomised trial, retention was greater in those smokers with higher motivation to quit, more recent quit attempts, increased age, higher level of education and for those recruited through Quitline or newspaper advertisements.

Introduction

Participant attrition (Toerin, Brookes, Metcalfe, et al., 2009) is a potential problem in interpreting the findings of clinical trials especially when participants permanently drop out of a study (Lugtig, 2014). There are two principal types of participant attrition: (i) drop out/withdrawal (i.e. participants that no longer wish to participate in any further data collection/study demands); and (ii) loss to follow-up (i.e. participants who are not retained/or lost without reason) (Goldberg, Francois Chastang, Zins, et al., 2006). It is a common problem in clinical trials. For example, a review of health care intervention randomised control trials (RCTs) in six major journals (Toerin et al., 2009), found that 48% of trials that reported a sample size calculation failed to retain adequate numbers at outcome assessment (Toerin et al., 2009, Severi et al., 2011).

Excessive loss to follow-up can prolong recruitment, reduce statistical power, threaten the internal validity of study findings, compromise the generalisability of study outcomes, and waste money (Leon et al., 2007, Szklo and Nieto, 2012). Study results can be biased when participants retained differ from those who are not (Robinson, Dennison, Wayman, et al., 2007) and bias may be even more pronounced when loss to follow-up differs between intervention and comparison groups (Sprauge, Leece, Bhandri, et al., 2003). Assessment of the characteristics/factors associated with attrition is needed (Goldberg et al., 2006) to assess for selection biases and loss of statistical power (Goldberg et al., 2006, Ellenberg, 1994, Hunt and White, 1998) and these need to be considered in study data analysis and interpretation (Goldberg et al., 2006, Shih, 2002, Twisk and de Vente, 2002). As a rule of thumb, some suggest that loss to follow-up under 5% will result in little bias but over 20% loss can significantly threaten study validity (Severi et al., 2011, Sprauge et al., 2003). Studies indicate that often those participants with incomplete follow-up data, while similar at baseline to those with complete data, may be systematically different at follow-up (Leak et al., 2015, Woolard et al., 2004). Consequently this may limit generalisability of the results and lead to incorrect inferences about treatment effects (Leak et al., 2015). It is imperative that researchers get as close to complete follow-up data as possible (Severi et al., 2011, Sprauge et al., 2003).

Low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) populations have lower participation rates and higher loss to follow-up rates (Bonevski, Randell, Paul, et al., 2014). Low-SES populations also have characteristics that make follow-up more difficult, including substance abuse and mental health disorders, housing instability, intermittent telephone access, incarceration, and less understanding of and exposure to research (Blumental et al., 1995, Cunningham et al., 2008, Ramos-Gomez et al., 2008). Lower education, low health literacy, and financial stress are also associated with incomplete research follow-up (Leak et al., 2015).

Systematic review evidence shows that few behavioural interventions for smoking cessation have been undertaken for low low-SES smokers (Bonevski et al., 2014, Bryant et al., 2011, Courtney et al., 2015). For example, a recent review found only one Australian study that reported abstinence rates for smokers with a psychotic disorder (Bryant et al., 2011); however the factors associated with the high 83% retention obtained at 12-month follow-up was not evaluated (Baker et al., 2006, Baker et al., 2007). The most recent review examining attrition rates in smoking cessation studies found only nine studies (Belita & Sidani, 2015), and none had examined a low-SES or low income population. Consequently, this study is the first to describe and evaluate the factors associated with retention for low-SES smokers enrolled in a pragmatic RCT.

An increasing body of evidence indicates the challenge facing disadvantaged populations is staying quit, rather than forming the goal of quitting and trying (Borland, 2013). Low-SES smokers are understudied (Courtney et al., 2015) and they face some unique challenges that may reduce the likelihood of study retention. For example, low-SES smokers tend to have higher nicotine dependence (Bobak et al., 2000, Hyland et al., 2006, Siahpush et al., 2006), in addition to more smokers in their social networks and stress in their day-to-day lives (Paul, Ross, Bryant, et al., 2010), but these factors association with retention are yet to be tested for low-SES smokers. In the general smoking population, smoking-related, socio-demographic, behavioural, and health-related factors have been linked to retention, but little is known about the role of these factors and recruitment source in retention of low-SES smokers. Length of previous quit attempts (Borrelli et al., 2002, Leeman et al., 2006) and confidence in quitting (Nevid, Javier, & Moulton, 1996) are associated with study retention but evidence is mixed for cigarettes smoked per day (Nevid et al., 1996, Bowen et al., 2000, Curtin et al., 2000). On the whole, the association between study retention and other socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. age, (Leeman et al., 2006, Fortman and Killen, 1994), education level, (Borrelli et al., 2002, Curtin et al., 2000) sex, (Greenberger & Knab, 2000) and number of dependent children) (Leeman et al., 2006), behavioural/psychological factors (e.g. weight concerns (Leeman et al., 2006), feelings of guilt, IQ (Beaver, 2013, Lynham et al., 1993)) and health-related factors (e.g. depression (Curtin et al., 2000), body mass index (BMI) and other health risk behaviours) (Goldberg et al., 2006, de Graaf et al., 2000, Deeg et al., 2002, Morrison et al., 1997, Siddiqui et al., 1996) is conflicting.

Further, there is an absence of data from smoking cessation clinical trials in socially disadvantaged populations (Bonevski et al., 2014). Many studies have failed to analyse the independent contributions of these factors to follow-up (Leak et al., 2015). Little effort has been made to investigate other factors that may be more salient in low-SES population groups, for example mental health disorders and poorer physical health (Leak et al., 2015). If factors associated with drop out in smoking cessation trials in low-SES populations are identifiable at study commencement, measures can be taken to enhance retention (Nowak, Sharif, Eischen, et al., 2014).

Our aims were to: (1) describe the retention rates in the Financial Interventions for Smoking Cessation Among Low-Income Smokers (FISCALS) RCT and (2) identify whether smoking-related, health-related, behavioural, socio-demographic characteristics, or recruitment source were associated with retention at 2- or 8-month follow-ups.

Section snippets

Study design

The FISCALs pragmatic RCT was funded (APP1021862) by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (Courtney, Bradford, Martire, et al., 2014). The trial design was in accordance with the CONSORT statement; the trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612000725864). In brief, the current trial tested an innovative approach to improving smoking cessation outcomes in low-SES smokers by providing financial education and support

Sample

In total, 2557 people were assessed for eligibility, of which 1047 (41%) participants were randomised. The main exclusion from being randomised was where the applicant was not low-SES (n = 555, 22%). Of those randomised, 946 (90%) completed the 2-month follow-up and 880 (84%) completed the final 8-month follow-up. Details of recruitment and retention are presented in the CONSORT diagram (as shown in Supplementary Fig. 1). Retention rate at 8-month follow-up were similar for the control (86%) and

Discussion

The > 80% retention of low-SES participants herein is the highest recorded in any community-based smoking cessation trial (Belita & Sidani, 2015). The study results suggested that retention was less associated with general and mental health issues than might be expected and appears to be linked more with engagement and commitment to smoking cessation. We found that there were no significant differences in retention for those with co-morbid mental health conditions, smokers receiving additional

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Emma Black, Veronica Boland, Deborah Bradford, Danya Braunstein, Philip Clare, Jaimi Iredale, Sundresan Naicker, Joel Tibbetts, Lauren Touyz and Emily Upton for their work on the project. We acknowledge the assistance of Quitline services, and Australian Government Department of Human Services Centrelink Customer Service Centres, for assisting with recruitment and staff at the HRF for their diligence with data collection. This research is funded by a grant (APP1021862)

References (55)

  • BelitaE. et al.

    Attrition in smoking cessation studies

    The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research

    (2015)
  • BlumentalD.S. et al.

    Recruitment and retention of subjects for a longitudinal cancer prevention study in an inner-city black community

    Health Services Research

    (1995)
  • BobakM. et al.

    Smoke intake among smokers is higher in lower socioeconomic groups

    Tobacco Control

    (2000)
  • BoneskiB. et al.

    Comparing socially disadvantaged smokers who agree and decline to participate in a randomised smoking cessation trial

    BMJ Open

    (2015)
  • BonevskiB. et al.

    Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups

    BMC Medical Research Methodology

    (2014)
  • BorlandR.

    Understanding hard to maintain behaviour change: A dual process approach

    (2013)
  • BorrelliB. et al.

    Predictors of quitting and dropout among women in a clinic-based smoking cessation program

    Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

    (2002)
  • BowenD.J. et al.

    Recruiting women into a smoking cessation program: Who might quit?

    Women & Health

    (2000)
  • BryantJ. et al.

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected disadvantaged groups

    Addiction

    (2011)
  • CollinsB.N. et al.

    Proactive recruitment predicts participant retention to end of treatment in a secondhand smoke reduction trial with low-income maternal smokers

    Translational Behavioral Medicine

    (2011)
  • CourtneyR.J. et al.

    A randomized clinical trial of a financial education intervention with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for low socio-economic status Australian smokers: a study protocol

    Addiction

    (2014)
  • CourtneyR.J. et al.

    Smoking cessation among low-socioeconomic status and disadvantaged population groups: A systematic review of research output

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

    (2015)
  • CunninghamR. et al.

    Tracking inner city subtance users from the emergency department: how many contacts does it take?

    Academic Emergency Medicine

    (2008)
  • CurtinL. et al.

    Determinants of attrition from cessation treatment in smokers with a history of major depressive disorder

    Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

    (2000)
  • de GraafR. et al.

    Psychiatric and sociodemographic predictors of attrition in a longitudinal study: The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)

    American Journal of Epidemiology

    (2000)
  • El-KhorazatyN.M. et al.

    Recruitment and retention of low-income minority women in a behavioural intervention to reduce smoking, depression, and intimate partner violence during pregnancy

    BMC Public Health

    (2007)
  • EllenbergJ.H.

    Selection bias in observational and experimental studies

    Statistics in Medicine

    (1994)
  • Cited by (21)

    • Patterns and predictors of nicotine replacement therapy use among alcohol and other drug clients enrolled in a smoking cessation randomised controlled trial

      2021, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      Given education was not a consistent predictor of NRT use across timepoints or types of use there may be a couple of explanations for this result. There is some evidence to indicate that higher levels of education are associated with retention in treatment among smoking cessation trials (Courtney et al., 2017; Patterson et al., 2003; Urbanoski, Kenaszchuk, Inglis, Rotondi, & Rush, 2018; Veldhuizen, Zawertailo, Noormohamed, Hussain, & Selby, 2021). However, as the NRT use question in the 6.5-month follow-up survey assessed any use over the past 6-months rather than use at that specific follow-up timepoint it may also be plausible that those with a higher level of education better understood what the survey item was asking and/or they were more accurately able to recall the information.

    • Predictors of attrition in a smoking cessation trial conducted in the lung cancer screening setting

      2021, Contemporary Clinical Trials
      Citation Excerpt :

      An understanding of the barriers to tobacco treatment is a necessary first step to increasing the quit rates among those undergoing LCS, which can lead to an increase in the public health impact of screening [6]. Study results support prior findings that lower education [15,30] and heavier smoking [12,13,31] are associated with greater trial attrition. Importantly, novel findings indicated that trial attrition was associated with factors specific to the LCS setting.

    • Single-arm trial of the second version of an acceptance &amp; commitment therapy smartphone application for smoking cessation

      2017, Drug and Alcohol Dependence
      Citation Excerpt :

      Response choices ranged from “Not at all” (1) to “Very much” (5). To detect a potential signal in this short-term trial, the two-month post-enrollment follow-up survey assessed 7-day and 30-day point prevalence abstinence (Brunette et al., 2015; Courtney et al., 2016; Salepci et al., 2016). Due to cost and low demand characteristics for false reporting, the SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification recommends biochemical confirmation is unnecessary in population-based studies with limited face-to-face contact and studies where the optimal data collection methods are through the mail or telephone (Benowitz et al., 2002).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Clinical trial registration: trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN) 12612000725864.

    ☆☆

    Declaration of interests: Professor Billie Bonevski has received research funding from a Pfizer Investigator Initiated Grant. Professor Robert West undertakes research and consultancy for companies that develop and manufacture smoking cessation medications. He is unpaid co-director of the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, a not-for-profit organisation involved in training and assessing stop smoking practitioners.

    View full text