Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Pregnancy | Study protocol

The smoking cessation in pregnancy incentives trial (CPIT): study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled trial

Authors: Lesley Sinclair, Margaret McFadden, Helen Tilbrook, Alex Mitchell, Ada Keding, Judith Watson, Linda Bauld, Frank Kee, David Torgerson, Catherine Hewitt, Jennifer McKell, Pat Hoddinott, Fiona M. Harris, Isabelle Uny, Kathleen Boyd, Nicola McMeekin, Michael Ussher, David M. Tappin, for the CPIT III local research teams

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Eighty per cent of UK women have at least one baby, making pregnancy an opportunity to help women stop smoking before their health is irreparably compromised. Smoking cessation during pregnancy helps protect infants from miscarriage, still birth, low birth weight, asthma, attention deficit disorder and adult cardiovascular disease. UK national guidelines highlight lack of evidence for effectiveness of financial incentives to help pregnant smokers quit. This includes a research recommendation: within a UK context, are incentives an acceptable, effective and cost-effective way to help pregnant women who smoke to quit?

Methods

The Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT) III is a pragmatic, 42-month, multi-centre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial of the effect on smoking status of adding to usual Stop Smoking Services (SSS) support, the offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives, compared with usual support alone, to quit smoking during pregnancy.
Participants (n = 940) are pregnant smokers (age > 16 years, < 24 weeks pregnant, English speaking), who consent via telephone to take part and are willing to be followed-up in late pregnancy and 6 months after birth.
The primary outcome is cotinine/anabasine-validated abstinence from smoking in late pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include engagement with SSS, quit rates at 4 weeks from agreed quit date and 6 months after birth, and birth weight. Outcomes will be analysed by intention to treat, and regression models will be used to compare treatment effects on outcomes. A meta-analysis will include data from the feasibility study in Glasgow. An economic evaluation will assess cost-effectiveness from a UK NHS perspective. Process evaluation using a case-study approach will identify opportunities to improve recruitment and learning for future implementation.
Research questions include: what is the therapeutic efficacy of incentives; are incentives cost-effective; and what are the potential facilitators and barriers to implementing incentives in different parts of the UK?

Discussion

This phase III trial in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland follows a successful phase II trial in Glasgow, UK. The participating sites have diverse SSS that represent most cessation services in the UK and serve demographically varied populations. If found to be acceptable and cost-effective, this trial could demonstrate that financial incentives are effective and transferable to most UK SSS for pregnant women.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN15236311. Registered on 9 October 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
5.
go back to reference Flenady V, Koopmans L, Middleton P, et al. Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2011;377:1331–40.CrossRef Flenady V, Koopmans L, Middleton P, et al. Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2011;377:1331–40.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Avalos LA, Galindo C, Li D. A systematic review to calculate background miscarriage rates using life table analysis. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012;94:417–23.CrossRef Avalos LA, Galindo C, Li D. A systematic review to calculate background miscarriage rates using life table analysis. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012;94:417–23.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking: 50 years of progress. A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/. Accessed 23 Dec 2019 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking: 50 years of progress. A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2014. https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​books/​NBK179276/​. Accessed 23 Dec 2019
24.
go back to reference Tappin D, Bauld L, Purves D, Boyd K, Sinclair L, MacAskill S, McKell J, Friel B, McConnachie A, De Caestecker L, Tannahill C, Radley A, Coleman T. Financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h134.CrossRef Tappin D, Bauld L, Purves D, Boyd K, Sinclair L, MacAskill S, McKell J, Friel B, McConnachie A, De Caestecker L, Tannahill C, Radley A, Coleman T. Financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2015. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​h134.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Yin RK. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1209–24 PMC1089060.PubMedPubMedCentral Yin RK. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1209–24 PMC1089060.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Stake RE. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995. Stake RE. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.
31.
go back to reference Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin J, Dickersin K, Hróbjartsson A, Schulz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleža-Jerić K, Laupacis A, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7586.CrossRef Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin J, Dickersin K, Hróbjartsson A, Schulz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleža-Jerić K, Laupacis A, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​e7586.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Tappin DM, Bauld L, Tannahill C, de Caestecker L, Radley A, McConnachie A, Boyd K, Briggs A, Grant L, Cameron A, Macaskill S, Sinclair L, Friel B, Coleman T. The Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-113. Tappin DM, Bauld L, Tannahill C, de Caestecker L, Radley A, McConnachie A, Boyd K, Briggs A, Grant L, Cameron A, Macaskill S, Sinclair L, Friel B, Coleman T. The Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2012. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​1745-6215-13-113.
35.
go back to reference McConnachie A, Haig C, Sinclair L, Bauld L, Tappin DM. Birth weight differences between those offered financial voucher incentives for verified smoking cessation and control participants enrolled in the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT), employing an intuitive approach and a complier average causal effects (CACE) analysis. Trials. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2053-x. McConnachie A, Haig C, Sinclair L, Bauld L, Tappin DM. Birth weight differences between those offered financial voucher incentives for verified smoking cessation and control participants enrolled in the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT), employing an intuitive approach and a complier average causal effects (CACE) analysis. Trials. 2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13063-017-2053-x.
36.
go back to reference Van Hoorn R, Tummers M, Booth A, Gerhardus A, Rehfuess E, Hind D, Bossuyt PM, Welch V, Debray TPA, Underwood M, Ciijpers P, Kraemer H, Van der Wilt GJ, Kievit W. The development of CHAMP: a checklist for the appraisal of moderators and predictors. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0451-0. Van Hoorn R, Tummers M, Booth A, Gerhardus A, Rehfuess E, Hind D, Bossuyt PM, Welch V, Debray TPA, Underwood M, Ciijpers P, Kraemer H, Van der Wilt GJ, Kievit W. The development of CHAMP: a checklist for the appraisal of moderators and predictors. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12874-017-0451-0.
38.
go back to reference Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1997. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.
39.
go back to reference Ritchie J, Spencer E. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 173–94.CrossRef Ritchie J, Spencer E. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 173–94.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The smoking cessation in pregnancy incentives trial (CPIT): study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled trial
Authors
Lesley Sinclair
Margaret McFadden
Helen Tilbrook
Alex Mitchell
Ada Keding
Judith Watson
Linda Bauld
Frank Kee
David Torgerson
Catherine Hewitt
Jennifer McKell
Pat Hoddinott
Fiona M. Harris
Isabelle Uny
Kathleen Boyd
Nicola McMeekin
Michael Ussher
David M. Tappin
for the CPIT III local research teams
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Pregnancy
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-4042-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Trials 1/2020 Go to the issue