- Email: [email protected]
What is the most cost-effective advertising strategy for alcohol pharmacotherapy clinical trials?
Abstracts / Drug and Alcohol Dependence 146 (2015) e2–e33
and TM use patterns and preferences pertaining to their substance treatment. Results: Mobile phone ownership was common (93%) with no significant differences in ownership among self-reported homeless, recently incarcerated, and unemployed respondents. Most reported sending or receiving TM (93%) and reporting ‘very much’ or ‘somewhat’ comfort sending TM (79%). Contacting buprenorphine providers by phone (30%) or TM (17%) was uncommon, however most preferred to use either form of communication to reach their provider (67%). Older patients received less TM (25) compared to younger age groups (128) yet were as interested as the rest of the clinic population to have their provider’s mobile phone number (96%) and send TM if at risk of relapse (78%). Conclusions: Our findings highlight the acceptability of enhancing patient-provider mobile phone and TM communications in a public sector, office-based buprenorphine clinic, even among respondents that were not comfortable in using TM. Although mobile phone ownership was very common, frequent turnover in phone ownership and changing phone numbers highlights challenges in feasibility for any future mhealth interventions in this clinical setting. Financial Support: Babak Tofighi is supported by a NRSA T32: Postdoctoral Primary Care Research Training Program (HRSA T32HP22238-01-00) and the Research in Addiction Medicine Scholars Program (R25DA03211). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.694 What is the most cost-effective advertising strategy for alcohol pharmacotherapy clinical trials? David A. Tompkins, Joseph A. Harrison, Eric C. Strain Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States Aims: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for alcohol use disorder (AUD) pharmacotherapies can be hampered by ineffective recruitment, leading to increased trial costs or underpowered studies. The current analyses examined the recruitment effectiveness of different advertising mechanisms during two consecutive outpatient RCTs of novel AUD pharmacotherapies. Methods: Trials were conducted during 2009–2012. During an initial phone screen, participants identified one of eight ad sources for learning about the study. Qualified persons were then scheduled for an in-person screen. Recruitment effectiveness was defined as the proportion of persons meeting criteria for an in-person screen for each ad source. Cost-effectiveness was determined by dividing the total cost for each ad source by the respective number of phone screens, in-person screens, participants randomized, and completers it produced. Differences between ad sources were examined using chi square tests. Results: 1813 calls resulted in 1005 completed phone screens. The most common ad source given by callers was TV (34%), followed by print (29%), word-of-mouth (11%), %yer (8%), internet (5%), radio (5%), bus ad (2%), and billboard (1%). There was a significant difference between ad sources in the percentage of qualified callers scheduled for an in-person screen [X2 (8, N = 1005) = 23.9, p = 0.002]. Participants reporting bus ads (46%), billboard (44%), or print ads (34%) were significantly more likely than the other sources to be scheduled for an in-person screen. The most cost-effective ad source was print ($2506 per completer), while billboard was the least cost-effective ($13,376 per completer).
e5
Conclusions: Recruitment in AUD RCTs can be successful using diverse advertising methods. The present analyses favored use of print ads as the most cost-effective approach for these trials. Financial support: This work was funded by NIDA (5T32 DA07209, K24 DA023186, K23 DA029609) as well as two subcontracts from NIAAA administered by Fast-Track Drugs and Biologics, LLC. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.695 Delay discounting predicts preference reversals by cigarette smokers Kayla N. Tormohlen, Alexis K. Matusiewicz, Antonio Tyson, Richard Yi Center for Addictions, Personality and Emotion Research, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States Aims: Preference reversals (PR) in intertemporal choice, predicted by delay discounting (DD) models, are thought to model self-control failures such as smoking relapse. No research has explicitly attempted to predict PRs from DD rates. The present research evaluates this relationship with cigarette smokers. Methods: Thirty-one (31) cigarette smokers met at least two of the following: (1) DSM-IV nicotine dependence, (2) Score ≥5 on the FTQ, (3) Self-report smoking ≥20 cigarettes/day, 1 year minimum. Participants completed a novel 86-item binary choice measure with 27 now-vs-later items (Monetary Choice Questionnaire), and 59 later-vs-later items. Hyperbolic DD rates (k) were determined for three magnitudes using the now-vs-later items, and Observed PRs (OPR) were determined using the later-vs-later items. Results: Predicted PRs (PPR) were determined for each corresponding OPR using individual DD rates. Linear regression (y-intercept = 0) with PPR (predictor variable) and OPR (outcome variable) was conducted. A slope (b) of 1 indicates unbiased correspondence between PPR and OPR. The mean slope across magnitudes was .96 (SE = .03). PPR based on hyperbolic discounting were classified “excellent” (10% of b = 1) for 80.6% of participants and classified “good” (20% of b = 1) for 87.1% of participants across all magnitudes. Conclusions: Hyperbolic DD rates appear to predict PRs. These results advance hyperbolic discounting as a construct relevant with self-control failures and their timing. This research provides proof of concept that indices of a cigarette smoker’s valuation of future outcomes (k) may help predict smoking relapse timing (modeled by PRs). Knowledge of relapse vulnerability timing could be used for temporally targeted interventions to promote abstinence. Financial support: National Institute on Drug Abuse. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.696
and TM use patterns and preferences pertaining to their substance treatment. Results: Mobile phone ownership was common (93%) with no significant differences in ownership among self-reported homeless, recently incarcerated, and unemployed respondents. Most reported sending or receiving TM (93%) and reporting ‘very much’ or ‘somewhat’ comfort sending TM (79%). Contacting buprenorphine providers by phone (30%) or TM (17%) was uncommon, however most preferred to use either form of communication to reach their provider (67%). Older patients received less TM (25) compared to younger age groups (128) yet were as interested as the rest of the clinic population to have their provider’s mobile phone number (96%) and send TM if at risk of relapse (78%). Conclusions: Our findings highlight the acceptability of enhancing patient-provider mobile phone and TM communications in a public sector, office-based buprenorphine clinic, even among respondents that were not comfortable in using TM. Although mobile phone ownership was very common, frequent turnover in phone ownership and changing phone numbers highlights challenges in feasibility for any future mhealth interventions in this clinical setting. Financial Support: Babak Tofighi is supported by a NRSA T32: Postdoctoral Primary Care Research Training Program (HRSA T32HP22238-01-00) and the Research in Addiction Medicine Scholars Program (R25DA03211). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.694 What is the most cost-effective advertising strategy for alcohol pharmacotherapy clinical trials? David A. Tompkins, Joseph A. Harrison, Eric C. Strain Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States Aims: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for alcohol use disorder (AUD) pharmacotherapies can be hampered by ineffective recruitment, leading to increased trial costs or underpowered studies. The current analyses examined the recruitment effectiveness of different advertising mechanisms during two consecutive outpatient RCTs of novel AUD pharmacotherapies. Methods: Trials were conducted during 2009–2012. During an initial phone screen, participants identified one of eight ad sources for learning about the study. Qualified persons were then scheduled for an in-person screen. Recruitment effectiveness was defined as the proportion of persons meeting criteria for an in-person screen for each ad source. Cost-effectiveness was determined by dividing the total cost for each ad source by the respective number of phone screens, in-person screens, participants randomized, and completers it produced. Differences between ad sources were examined using chi square tests. Results: 1813 calls resulted in 1005 completed phone screens. The most common ad source given by callers was TV (34%), followed by print (29%), word-of-mouth (11%), %yer (8%), internet (5%), radio (5%), bus ad (2%), and billboard (1%). There was a significant difference between ad sources in the percentage of qualified callers scheduled for an in-person screen [X2 (8, N = 1005) = 23.9, p = 0.002]. Participants reporting bus ads (46%), billboard (44%), or print ads (34%) were significantly more likely than the other sources to be scheduled for an in-person screen. The most cost-effective ad source was print ($2506 per completer), while billboard was the least cost-effective ($13,376 per completer).
e5
Conclusions: Recruitment in AUD RCTs can be successful using diverse advertising methods. The present analyses favored use of print ads as the most cost-effective approach for these trials. Financial support: This work was funded by NIDA (5T32 DA07209, K24 DA023186, K23 DA029609) as well as two subcontracts from NIAAA administered by Fast-Track Drugs and Biologics, LLC. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.695 Delay discounting predicts preference reversals by cigarette smokers Kayla N. Tormohlen, Alexis K. Matusiewicz, Antonio Tyson, Richard Yi Center for Addictions, Personality and Emotion Research, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States Aims: Preference reversals (PR) in intertemporal choice, predicted by delay discounting (DD) models, are thought to model self-control failures such as smoking relapse. No research has explicitly attempted to predict PRs from DD rates. The present research evaluates this relationship with cigarette smokers. Methods: Thirty-one (31) cigarette smokers met at least two of the following: (1) DSM-IV nicotine dependence, (2) Score ≥5 on the FTQ, (3) Self-report smoking ≥20 cigarettes/day, 1 year minimum. Participants completed a novel 86-item binary choice measure with 27 now-vs-later items (Monetary Choice Questionnaire), and 59 later-vs-later items. Hyperbolic DD rates (k) were determined for three magnitudes using the now-vs-later items, and Observed PRs (OPR) were determined using the later-vs-later items. Results: Predicted PRs (PPR) were determined for each corresponding OPR using individual DD rates. Linear regression (y-intercept = 0) with PPR (predictor variable) and OPR (outcome variable) was conducted. A slope (b) of 1 indicates unbiased correspondence between PPR and OPR. The mean slope across magnitudes was .96 (SE = .03). PPR based on hyperbolic discounting were classified “excellent” (10% of b = 1) for 80.6% of participants and classified “good” (20% of b = 1) for 87.1% of participants across all magnitudes. Conclusions: Hyperbolic DD rates appear to predict PRs. These results advance hyperbolic discounting as a construct relevant with self-control failures and their timing. This research provides proof of concept that indices of a cigarette smoker’s valuation of future outcomes (k) may help predict smoking relapse timing (modeled by PRs). Knowledge of relapse vulnerability timing could be used for temporally targeted interventions to promote abstinence. Financial support: National Institute on Drug Abuse. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.696