Comparison of remote to hybrid methods on recruitment and retention rates in a smoking cessation trial

IF 3.5 2区医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY

Drug and alcohol dependence Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-27 DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112976

Elizabeth S. Hawes , Andrew P. Bontemps , William P. Wagner , Peter S. Hendricks , Adrienne C. Lahti , Andres Azuero , Karen L. Cropsey

{"title":"Comparison of remote to hybrid methods on recruitment and retention rates in a smoking cessation trial","authors":"Elizabeth S. Hawes , Andrew P. Bontemps , William P. Wagner , Peter S. Hendricks , Adrienne C. Lahti , Andres Azuero , Karen L. Cropsey","doi":"10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112976","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Due to the COVD-19 pandemic, many ongoing clinical trials had to rapidly shift to using remote trials, including our smoking cessation trial within a criminal legal population. The objective of this study was to compare recruitment rate, study adherence, retention, nicotine replacement therapy adherence, and quit attempts between participants who completed the study as planned (In-Person; N = 236), after implementation of a voucher system and additional check-in appointments (Incentivized; N = 126), and after the pandemic began (Hybrid; N = 153).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>515 participants were recruited with criminal legal involvement from Birmingham, AL, and randomized to an In Vivo nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling group or a standard smoking cessation counseling group, with both groups receiving 12 weeks of NRT.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were no significant differences in any of the study outcomes between the methodology groups, suggesting that hybrid methods of research do not result in a slower recruitment pace, less visits attended, or a higher likelihood of drop-out. Completing the study remotely did not appear to impact study outcomes such as likelihood of making a quit attempt or using NRT.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study suggests that remote methods may be as effective as in-person methods in a clinical trial, although a randomized trial of these methods is needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11322,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence","volume":"278 ","pages":"Article 112976"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871625004296","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Due to the COVD-19 pandemic, many ongoing clinical trials had to rapidly shift to using remote trials, including our smoking cessation trial within a criminal legal population. The objective of this study was to compare recruitment rate, study adherence, retention, nicotine replacement therapy adherence, and quit attempts between participants who completed the study as planned (In-Person; N = 236), after implementation of a voucher system and additional check-in appointments (Incentivized; N = 126), and after the pandemic began (Hybrid; N = 153).

Methods

515 participants were recruited with criminal legal involvement from Birmingham, AL, and randomized to an In Vivo nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling group or a standard smoking cessation counseling group, with both groups receiving 12 weeks of NRT.

Results

There were no significant differences in any of the study outcomes between the methodology groups, suggesting that hybrid methods of research do not result in a slower recruitment pace, less visits attended, or a higher likelihood of drop-out. Completing the study remotely did not appear to impact study outcomes such as likelihood of making a quit attempt or using NRT.

Conclusions

This study suggests that remote methods may be as effective as in-person methods in a clinical trial, although a randomized trial of these methods is needed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

远程方法与混合方法在戒烟试验中招募率和保留率的比较

由于covid -19大流行，许多正在进行的临床试验不得不迅速转向使用远程试验，包括我们在刑事合法人群中进行的戒烟试验。本研究的目的是比较按计划完成研究的参与者（面对面，N = 236）、实施代金券制度和额外登记预约后（N = 126）和大流行开始后（N = 153）的招募率、研究依从性、保留性、尼古丁替代疗法依从性和戒烟尝试。方法从美国伯明翰招募了515名涉及刑事法律的参与者，随机分为体内尼古丁替代疗法（NRT）采样组和标准戒烟咨询组，两组均接受12周的NRT治疗。结果两组研究结果均无显著差异，表明混合研究方法不会导致招募速度减慢、就诊人数减少或退出的可能性增加。远程完成研究似乎不会影响研究结果，如戒烟尝试或使用NRT的可能性。结论：本研究表明，在临床试验中，远程方法可能与现场方法一样有效，尽管需要对这些方法进行随机试验。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Drug and alcohol dependence 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

7.40

自引率

7.10%

发文量

409

审稿时长

41 days

期刊介绍： Drug and Alcohol Dependence is an international journal devoted to publishing original research, scholarly reviews, commentaries, and policy analyses in the area of drug, alcohol and tobacco use and dependence. Articles range from studies of the chemistry of substances of abuse, their actions at molecular and cellular sites, in vitro and in vivo investigations of their biochemical, pharmacological and behavioural actions, laboratory-based and clinical research in humans, substance abuse treatment and prevention research, and studies employing methods from epidemiology, sociology, and economics.