Technology, Health & Care Research Group, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, Netherlands.
Centre for eHealth and Well-being Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 23;22(7):e17207. doi: 10.2196/17207.
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=0.049; face-to-face R=0.076). Within the blended group, living without children predicted higher adherence to the face-to-face mode (R=0.034), independent of age. Higher adherence to the web mode of the blended treatment was predicted by a combination of an extrinsic motivation to quit, a less negative attitude toward quitting, and less health complaints (R=0.164).
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.
混合面对面和基于网络的治疗是一种有前途的戒烟治疗方法。由于坚持被证明是治疗可接受性的指标和有效性的决定因素,我们探索并比较了具有相似内容和强度的混合和单独面对面戒烟治疗的坚持情况和坚持预测因素。
本研究的目的是(1)比较混合戒烟治疗的坚持情况与面对面治疗的坚持情况;(2)比较混合治疗的坚持情况与其面对面模式和网络模式;(3)确定对两种治疗的坚持的基线预测因素,以及(4)混合治疗两种模式的预测因素。
我们计算了荷兰门诊戒烟诊所的患者(N=292)的治疗总暴露时间,他们被随机分配到混合戒烟治疗组(n=130)或具有相同成分的面对面治疗组(n=162)。对于两种治疗方法(混合和面对面)以及混合治疗的两种模式(面对面与网络模式),我们比较了坚持水平(即治疗时间),并确定了 33 个人口统计学、吸烟相关和健康相关的患者特征的坚持预测因素。
我们没有发现混合治疗和面对面治疗之间的坚持存在显著差异。混合治疗组的参与者平均接受了 246 分钟的治疗(中位数为 106.7%的预期治疗时间,IQR 150%-355%),而面对面治疗组的参与者接受了 238 分钟的治疗(中位数为 103.3%的预期治疗时间,IQR 150%-330%)。在混合组中,面对面模式的坚持率是网络模式的两倍。混合组的参与者平均接受了 198 分钟(SD 120)的面对面治疗(152%的预期治疗时间)和 75 分钟(SD 53)的网络治疗(75%的预期治疗时间)。较高的年龄是唯一一致预测混合组和面对面组更高坚持率的特征。对于面对面组,更多的戒烟社会支持也预示着更高的坚持率。这些预测因素解释的坚持率变化较低(混合 R=0.049;面对面 R=0.076)。在混合组中,没有孩子的生活预测了更高的面对面模式坚持率(R=0.034),这与年龄无关。混合治疗网络模式更高的坚持率与外在戒烟动机、对戒烟的态度不那么消极以及较少的健康抱怨相结合有关(R=0.164)。
本研究代表了首次尝试全面比较混合戒烟治疗与等效面对面治疗的坚持情况和坚持预测因素的研究之一。有趣的是,尽管两种治疗方法的总体坚持率似乎都很高,但混合治疗中的面对面模式坚持率远高于网络模式。这支持了一种观点,即在混合治疗中,一种传递模式可以弥补另一种模式的弱点。较高的年龄被发现是坚持治疗的共同预测因素。本研究中检查的特征预测的坚持率差异较低,这表明应该在未来的研究中探索其他变量,如提供者相关的卫生系统因素和随时间变化的患者特征。
荷兰试验注册处 NTR5113;http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5113。