Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2015, Vol. 23, No. 2, 97–108

© 2015 American Psychological Association 1064-1297/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038810

Does Impulsiveness Moderate Response to Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation Among Pregnant and Newly Postpartum Women? Alexa A. Lopez, Joan M. Skelly, Thomas J. White, and Stephen T. Higgins

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Vermont We examined whether impulsiveness moderates response to financial incentives for cessation among pregnant smokers. Participants were randomized to receive financial incentives delivered contingent on smoking abstinence or to a control condition wherein incentives were delivered independent of smoking status. The study was conducted in two steps: First, we examined associations between baseline impulsiveness and abstinence at late pregnancy and 24-weeks-postpartum as part of a planned prospective study of this topic using data from a recently completed, randomized controlled clinical trial (N ⫽ 118). Next, to increase statistical power, we conducted a second analysis collapsing results across that recent trial and two prior trials involving the same study conditions (N ⫽ 236). Impulsivity was assessed using a delay discounting (DD) of hypothetical monetary rewards task in all three trials and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) in the most recent trial. Neither DD nor BIS predicted smoking status in the single or combined trials. Receiving abstinence-contingent incentives, lower baseline smoking rate, and a history of quit attempts prepregnancy predicted greater odds of antepartum abstinence across the single and combined trials. No variable predicted postpartum abstinence across the single and combined trials, although a history of antepartum quit attempts and receiving abstinence-contingent incentives predicted in the single and combined trials, respectively. Overall, this study provides no evidence that impulsiveness as assessed by DD or BIS moderates response to this treatment approach while underscoring a substantial association of smoking rate and prior quit attempts with abstinence across the contingent incentives and control treatment conditions. Keywords: pregnant smokers, contingency management, financial incentives, impulsivity, smoking cessation

Impulsiveness is considered by many to be a risk factor for substance use disorders and an emerging predictor of treatment outcome among those attempting to discontinue substance abuse (Baker, Johnson, & Bickel, 2003; Bickel, Odum, & Madden, 1999; Heil, Johnson, Higgins, & Bickel, 2006; MacKillop, Mattson, Anderson Mackillop, Castelda, & Donovick, 2007; Madden, Bickel, & Jacobs, 1999; Mitchell, 1999; Vuchinich & Simpson, 1998; Washio et al., 2011). The construct is measured in a variety of ways, including through use of the delay discounting (DD) of monetary rewards task and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS, Version 11), which are the focus of the present study (Barratt & Patton, 1983; Bickel & Marsch, 2001). DD is a behavioral-economic task that is used to examine individual differences in the rate at which rewards lose value and

aversive events lose salience as delay to their receipt increases (Bickel & Marsch, 2001). DD tasks used with humans often involve hypothetical monetary outcomes (e.g., Bickel et al., 1999; Madden, Petry, Badger, & Bickel, 1997). Participants make a series of choices between immediately available hypothetical monetary rewards and a delayed, larger amount across different temporal delays. Identifying indifference points across a range of temporal delays, and then fitting Mazur’s (1987) hyperbolic equation to the data, allows one to quantify the degree to which individuals discount delayed rewards (Johnson & Bickel, 2002). Participants generally prefer smaller, more immediate over larger, more delayed rewards, although there are considerable individual differences in the degree to which that applies. The shape of the

This article was published Online First March 2, 2015. Alexa A. Lopez, Vermont Center on Behavior & Health, Department of Psychiatry, and Department of Psychology, University of Vermont; Joan M. Skelly, Department of Medical Biostatistics, University of Vermont; Thomas J. White, Vermont Center on Behavior & Health, and Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont; Stephen T. Higgins, Vermont Center on Behavior & Health, Department of Psychiatry, and Department of Psychology, University of Vermont. Alexa A. Lopez is now at the Center for the Study of Tobacco Products, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Center of Biomedical Research Excellence award P20GM103644 from the National

Institute of General Medical Sciences, research grants R01DA14028 and R01HD075669 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, respectively, and institutional training grant T32DA07242 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The funding sources had no other role in this project other than financial support. All authors contributed in a significant way to this article, and all authors read and approved the final manuscript. Portions of this report served as a doctoral dissertation thesis by Alexa A. Lopez. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephen T. Higgins, Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, UHC Campus, Rm 3100B Old Hall, 1 S. Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05401. E-mail: [email protected] 97

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

98

LOPEZ, SKELLY, WHITE, AND HIGGINS

discounting function is generally hyperbolic. The BIS is among the most widely used standardized instruments designed to assess individual differences in impulsivity. The instrument includes 30 items that individually contribute to a total score as well as additional factor scales (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995; Stanford et al., 2009). The instrument has been well validated using other neuropsychological measures of impulsivity in a wide variety of populations (Spinella, 2004; Spinella, 2007). There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that DD is associated with a wide range of health-related risk behaviors (Bickel et al., 2007; Bickel, Jarmolowicz, Mueller, Koffarnus, & Gatchalian 2012; Bradford, 2010; Davis, Patte, Curtis, & Reid, 2010; Epstein, Salvy, Carr, Dearing, & Bickel, 2010; Rogers, Moeller, Swann, & Clark 2010). Additionally, greater DD is associated with dependence on cocaine (Heil et al., 2006), opioids (Madden et al., 1999), alcohol (Dom, Hulstijn, & Sabbe 2006; MacKillop et al., 2007; Vuchinich & Simpson, 1998), and nicotine (Baker et al., 2003; Bickel et al., 1999; Mitchell, 1999; Odum, Madden, & Bickel, 2002). Greater discounting is also associated with the number of cigarettes smoked per day (Ohmura, Takahashi, & Kitamura, 2005) and smoking relapse in laboratory studies (Dallery & Raiff, 2007; Mueller et al., 2009), as well as outcomes in several clinical trials (MacKillop & Kahler, 2009; Sheffer et al., 2012; Yoon et al., 2007). There is at least one trial in which DD predicted treatment response in cocaine-dependent outpatients receiving the same incentive-based treatment approach that will be investigated in the present study (Washio et al., 2011). More recently, a study was reported examining whether discounting changes with sustained smoking abstinence (Secades-Villa, Weidberg, García-Rodríguez, Fernández-Hermida, & Yoon, 2014). Smokers and abstainers showed no differences on DD immediately posttreatment; however, abstainers were discounting significantly less compared with smokers at a 12-month follow-up, suggesting that sustained smoking abstinence is associated with reductions in DD. Congruent with the relationships between greater DD and increased risk for substance use disorders, higher BIS total scores discriminate between cocaine-dependent individuals and controls (Lane, Moeller, Steinberg, Buzby, & Kosten, 2007) and between ecstasy users and controls (Bond, Verheyden, Wingrove, & Curran, 2004). BIS scores have also been associated with more severe substance use disorders. Turning to treatment response, higher BIS total scores predict treatment dropout among cocaine-dependent (Moeller et al., 2001, 2002; Patkar et al., 2004; Winhusen et al., 2013) and methamphetamine-dependent (Winhusen et al., 2013) outpatients. As can be expected, some exceptions or boundary conditions on the positive associations between DD and risk for unhealthy behavior patterns have been reported as well. In a study of adolescent cannabis abusers, greater DD predicted poorer treatment outcomes in univariate analyses, but not after controlling for the potential confounding influence of sociodemographic characteristics in multivariate analyses (Stanger et al., 2012). Bradstreet et al. (2012) reported that DD did not differentiate significantly between pregnant spontaneous quitters and continuing smokers. Spontaneous quitting is a term used to describe a small proportion of women who successfully self-initiate smoking cessation shortly after learning of their pregnancy (Heil et al., 2014; Solomon & Quinn, 2004). By contrast, what might be considered another aspect of

impulsivity (e.g., social discounting) significantly differed between quitters and smokers, with quitters showing less social discounting (i.e., selfishness) than smokers as a function of degree of separation (i.e., greater generosity). More recently, White, Redner, Skelly, and Higgins (2014)conducted a follow-up study to Bradstreet et al. (2012), again examining the ability of DD to predict spontaneous quitting among pregnant smokers. Social discounting was not examined in the follow-up study, as it was not assessed in the majority of participants included in this larger study. DD, educational attainment, and smoking rate (cigarettes smoked per day) were each univariate predictors of quitting. In multivariate analyses, educational attainment remained a significant predictor, and there was a significant interaction of DD and smoking rate, with DD being a significant predictor at lower, but not higher, smoking rates. Turning to studies in the general population of smokers, at least one study revealed a gender difference, with DD discriminating between male, but not female, smokers and nonsmokers (Jones, Landes, Yi & Bickel, 2009). A longitudinal twin study of discounting from early to late adolescence reported moderate heritability and a significant association with substance use in males, but not females, and no association with substance use problems in either sex (Isen, Sparks, & Iacono, 2014). Lastly, DD scores at study intake assessment failed to predict treatment outcomes in a study examining an incentivebased intervention designed to reinforce exercise among college undergraduates (Pope, 2013). To our knowledge, the association between DD, BIS, and response to incentives-based smoking cessation has not been reported. The studies mentioned above (Bradstreet et al., 2012; White et al., 2014) regarding pregnant smokers examined spontaneous quitting and not response to a formal intervention. Examining whether the construct of impulsiveness moderates response to incentive-based interventions is of particular interest, as such interventions are designed to offer relatively immediate reinforcement for healthy choices, and thus might be expected to be more effective than other treatment approaches with more impulsive individuals, who may be unable to tolerate the longer delays typically involved with naturalistic rewards for quitting smoking during pregnancy (e.g., improved birth outcomes). The results from the Washio et al. (2011) study on the response to incentivebased interventions among cocaine-dependent outpatients are consistent with that position. Washio and colleagues reported a significant association between greater DD and lower rates of abstinence in an incentive-based intervention condition with relatively low reinforcement magnitude, but not in a condition with higher magnitude reinforcement. That is, when the magnitude of the incentives was low, and thus less effective, DD predicted abstinence levels. However, as the magnitude of the incentive value increased and efficacy increased in parallel, the ability of DD to predict abstinence levels decreased to nonsignificant levels. Considering that incentive-based interventions are increasingly being used to effectively alter the same health-related behaviors for which impulsivity is reported to be a risk factor (S. T. Higgins, Silverman, Sigmon, & Naito, 2012), knowing whether response to incentive-based interventions may vary across different levels of impulsivity severity is an important question. Finally, knowing as much as possible about moderators of response to this evidencebased treatment for smoking cessation among pregnant and newly postpartum women should be helpful to ongoing efforts to further

IMPULSIVITY AND INCENTIVES WITH PREGNANT SMOKERS

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

increase treatment effect size (S. T. Higgins et al., 2014; S. T. Higgins, Silverman, et al., 2012). We first examined these questions as a prospective study that was conducted as part of recently reported randomized controlled clinical trial (S. T. Higgins, et al., 2014). Second, to increase statistical power and reduce the likelihood of false-negative results, we examined these questions using data from that single trial in combination with results from two previously reported trials that also involved abstinence-contingent and noncontingent incentives conditions as well as the DD task, although not the BIS (Heil et al., 2008; S. T. Higgins, et al., 2014).

Method Participants All participants (N ⫽ 236) were enrolled in randomized controlled clinical trials from which the smoking cessation and birth outcomes results have been reported previously (Heil et al., 2008; S. T. Higgins, Washio, et al., 2012; S. T. Higgins et al., 2014). One hundred forty of these participants contributed data to a prior study on predictors of smoking cessation in pregnant women that did not examine impulsiveness as a potential predictor (S. T. Higgins et al., 2009). The present trial was conducted in a university-based outpatient research clinic and approved by the local institutional review board. Participants were recruited from local obstetric clinics and the Federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children in the Burlington, Vermont area. To be eligible for inclusion, participants had to report currently smoking at the first prenatal care visit with biochemical verification, reside within the county in which the clinic is located with no plans to leave the area for 6 months following delivery, and speak English. Exclusion criteria included incarceration, previous participation in a trial on incentives for smoking abstinence or living with a trial participant, current opioid substitution therapy, current use of psychotropic medications other than antidepressants, being greater than 25 weeks gestation, and living in a group residence (for more details, see S. T. Higgins, et al., 2014; S. T. Higgins, Washio, et al., 2012).

Assessments At the study intake assessment, participants completed questionnaires examining sociodemographics, current smoking status and history, smoking environment and motivations, confidence and intentions to quit smoking, and provided breath and urine specimens. They also completed the DD (all trials) and BIS (only the recent trial that is examined separately herein) tasks. Abbreviated versions of the intake assessment were administered again at seven subsequent assessments completed antepartum (early and late pregnancy) and postpartum (2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks). Smoking status was biochemically verified at each assessment using urine cotinine testing (cut point ⱖ80 ng/ml; Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique, Microgenics Corporation, Fremont, CA; a Roche Cobas Mira analyzer, Dade Behring Inc., Deerfield, IL). The DD task was completed in a quiet room with a staff member present. The DD task used a notebook computer running Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0. The DD program has been described previously (Johnson & Bickel, 2002). Briefly, participants were seated in

99

front of the computer screen, which displayed the following message: “Imagine that you have a choice between waiting [length of time] and then receiving $1,000 or receiving a smaller amount of money right away. Please choose between the two options.” In the instructions, the length of time given was either 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, or 25 years. When participants were ready to begin the task, they clicked on the start button located on the screen and the DD program was initiated. Participants chose between two different options: always a fixed amount ($1,000) at a fixed delay, or a smaller amount available immediately. The DD program adjusted the value of the smaller reward across trials according to an algorithm wherein different values of the smaller reward were presented until an indifference point was found, in which the value of the smaller, immediate amount was subjectively equivalent to the delayed $1,000 reward (Johnson & Bickel, 2002). Once the indifference point for a given delay was determined, the next delay was introduced until an indifference point was established for each of the seven delays. Delays were presented in a fixed ascending or descending order for a given participant, but determined randomly across participants. Prior to assessment of each new delay, participants were presented again with the same instructions. The BIS is a 30-item self-report instrument designed to measure the construct of impulsiveness, and was administered at the same assessment intervals for DD (Barratt & Patton, 1983; Patton et al., 1995). A paper-and-pencil version of the BIS was completed by participants in a quiet office setting with a study staff member present. Although it is common to report BIS total scores to represent overall impulsivity severity, BIS scores can also be analyzed in several other ways corresponding to a three-factor structure (Patton et al., 1995; Stanford et al., 2009). However, multiple concerns have been expressed regarding the psychometrics supporting the three-factor structure, including in substanceabusing populations (e.g., Reid, Cyders, Moghaddam, & Fong, 2014; Steinberg, Sharp, Stanford, & Tharp, 2013). Thus, we focus on only the BIS total score in the present study.

Treatment Interventions All study participants were assigned to an incentive-based smoking-cessation intervention wherein they earned vouchers exchangeable for retail items, contingent on abstinence from recent smoking or to a control condition in which vouchers of comparable value were received independent of smoking status. This trial also included a third condition, which was a revised contingent incentives condition that was designed to increase abstinence above levels achieved with the usual incentives condition. Each of these interventions is described below. Note, however, that the outcomes achieved with the usual and revised incentive conditions did not differ and thus were combined for purposes of the present study. Those in the additional two trials included in the larger study sample received only the usual contingent voucher (CV) or noncontingent voucher (NCV) conditions. Additionally, all participants across trials completed the DD task, but only the 118 participants in the most recent trial (S. T. Higgins et al., 2014) completed the BIS. All other study details, including recruitment, assessment, and overall treatment condition, were consistent across trials. Usual CV condition. Vouchers redeemable for retail items were earned contingent on submitting breath carbon monoxide

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

100

LOPEZ, SKELLY, WHITE, AND HIGGINS

(CO) specimens ⱕ6 parts per million (ppm) during the initial 5 days of the cessation effort. Beginning in Week 2, vouchers were delivered contingent on urine-cotinine levels ⱕ80 ng/ml, a criterion that required a longer duration of smoking abstinence than breath CO. Voucher delivery was independent of self-reported smoking status and based exclusively on meeting the biochemicalverification criterion. Vouchers began at $6.25 and escalated by $1.25 per consecutive negative specimen to a maximum of $45.00, at which they remained, barring positive test results or missed abstinence monitoring visits. Positive test results or missed visits reset the voucher value back to the original low value, but two consecutive negative tests restored the value to the pre-reset level. The incentives intervention was in place from study initiation through 12-weeks postpartum. Revised contingent voucher (RCV) condition. The same voucher schedule was followed in this RCV condition, except that potential earnings were rescheduled, moving $300 forward as bonuses that could be earned during Weeks 1 through 6 by meeting a ⱕ4 ppm breath CO criterion during Week 1, testing cotinine negative at the first urine test on the second Monday of the quit attempt, and thereafter by submitting two cotinine-negative specimens per week through Week 6. More specifically, bonuses earned by reaching a cutoff of ⱕ4 ppm CO during Week 1 started at $18.75 and increased by $3.75 for each successive negative sample, reaching a maximum potential bonus of $33.75 for the fifth consecutive negative specimen meeting the ⱕ4-ppm CO cutoff during Week 1. Women in this condition earned the same incentive as in the CV condition if they met the ⱕ6 ppm CO, but not the ⱕ4 ppm, cutoff in Week 1. Testing cotinine-negative on the second Monday resulted in an additional bonus of $87.50 above usual CV incentive earnings on that date. Five more bonuses of $15.50 each were available on Thursdays (the second test day of each week) during Weeks 2 through 6 if a woman also tested negative for smoking at the earlier test conducted that same week. NCV control condition. In this condition, vouchers were delivered independent of smoking status. Voucher values were $15.00 per visit antepartum and $20.00 per visit postpartum, values that resulted in payment amounts comparable with average earnings in the CV condition in prior trials (Heil et al., 2008). All else was the same as in the CV and RCV conditions. Other services. In addition to the interventions, participants in all treatment conditions received usual care for smoking cessation provided through their obstetric clinics, which typically involves provider inquiry regarding smoking status and a discussion of the advantages of quitting during pregnancy. Study staff provided additional cessation counseling to all participants during four visits within 2 weeks of study entry, at the final antepartum visit, and during three postpartum study visits. For women who quit during pregnancy, brief counseling also occurred during routine smoking-status monitoring visits whenever temptations to smoke were reported. As a counseling guide, we used a printed booklet tailored for pregnant smokers (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2001).

Statistical Methods Regarding abstinence outcomes, we examined late pregnancy and 24-week-postpartum 7-day point-prevalence abstinence (i.e.,

biochemically verified self-report of no smoking in the 7 days prior to the assessment). Regarding the DD task, Mazur’s (1987) hyperbolic equation was fitted to each subject’s DD data using nonlinear regression. Goodness of fit was evaluated on the basis of model R2s and residual plots. Each subject’s derived discounting parameter (k) was used to compute corresponding log-transformed k values to account for the skewed distribution of the discounting score for subsequent analyses as well as ED50 values (1/k). Log k was used in the statistical analyses. ED50 values represent the estimated delay at which the immediate value of the reinforcer was discounted by 50% and provide a more intuitive interpretation of the rate of discounting (Yoon & Higgins, 2008). The analytic plan was implemented in the following six steps for the single-trial and multiple-trial analyses. First, subject characteristics were compared between the two treatment conditions using chi-square tests for categorical measures or t tests for continuous variables. Second, associations between intake DD log k values, BIS total scores, and baseline participant characteristics were conducted using Pearson’s correlation coefficients for continuous measures and t tests for dichotomous measures. Third, univariate relationships between baseline characteristics, smoking status (late-pregnancy point-prevalence assessment and 24-weekpostpartum point-prevalence assessment) and treatment condition with DD and BIS total scores (BIS was included in single trial only) were assessed using logistic regression. Additional models were run to examine the main effects of DD, BIS total scores, and treatment group, as well as the interaction of both DD and BIS with treatment condition. Fourth, backward elimination logistic regressions were used to model predictors of smoking status with DD, BIS, treatment condition, DD ⫻ Treatment and BIS ⫻ Treatment interaction terms, and all baseline characteristics that were significantly correlated with DD, BIS, or smoking status included in the initial step of the modeling procedure. The criterion for retention in the models was set to ␣ ⫽ .05. Separate regressions were conducted to predict 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at the late-pregnancy and 24-week-postpartum assessments. Fifth, women were categorized as “smokers” or “abstainers” based on their 24-week point-prevalence smoking status, and changes in DD and BIS scores from intake to 24-week-postpartum were examined across smoking status groups and within each group using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Sixth, Steps 1 through 5 were completed in the larger sample (N ⫽ 236) to examine the reliability of the findings. All analyses were performed using SAS Version 9 statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary NC). Statistical significance was defined as p ⬍ .05.

Results Participant Characteristics Participant characteristics for the single trial are shown in Table 1. On average, participants were relatively young and economically disadvantaged, with a mean age of less than 25 years; approximately 19% had less than a high school education; less than 25% had private insurance; and less than 20% were married. There were no significant differences between treatment conditions in any of the baseline sociodemographic or smoking characteristics examined. There were also no significant baseline differences between the two treatment conditions in log k values or BIS

IMPULSIVITY AND INCENTIVES WITH PREGNANT SMOKERS

101

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1 Participant Characteristics of Single Trial

Sociodemographics Age % ⬍High school education % White Weeks preg at baseline % Primagravida % Working for pay % Private insurance % Married Baseline delay discounting Delayed discounting BIS total score Smoking characteristics Age 1st cigarette Cigs/day prepreg Cigs/day at baseline NWQ Quits attempts during preg % History of quitting prepreg % Living with smokers % No smoking in home % Around none/few Smokers Psychiatric characteristics Beck Depression Inventory % History of depression Stress rating (1–10)

Overall

Contingent (n ⫽ 79)

Noncontingent (n ⫽ 39)

p value

24.6 ⫾ 0.5 18.8 93.1 10.3 ⫾ 0.4 64.1 55.1 23.7 16.1

24.5 ⫾ 0.5 15.4 94.9 10.1 ⫾ 0.5 64.1 54.4 26.6 13.9

24.7 ⫾ 0.9 25.6 89.5 10.7 ⫾ 0.7 64.1 56.4 17.9 20.5

.83 .18 .28 .43 1.00 .84 .30 .36

⫺6.5 ⫾ 0.2 66.5 ⫾ 1.0

⫺6.4 ⫾ 0.3 66.0 ⫾ 1.2

⫺6.7 ⫾ 0.3 67.3 ⫾ 1.6

.43 .55

15.5 ⫾ 0.3 18.3 ⫾ 0.8 8.7 ⫾ 0.6 1.5 ⫾ 0.1 0.6 ⫾ 0.1 72.9 81.4 61.0 27.1

15.6 ⫾ 0.4 18.6 ⫾ 0.9 9.1 ⫾ 0.6 1.5 ⫾ 0.1 0.7 ⫾ 0.2 78.5 83.5 60.8 25.3

15.2 ⫾ 0.3 17.8 ⫾ 1.4 7.8 ⫾ 0.8 1.6 ⫾ 0.1 0.5 ⫾ 0.2 61.5 76.9 61.5 30.8

.52 .63 .29 .67 .33 .05 .38 .93 .53

10.6 ⫾ 0.7 41.5 5.6 ⫾ 0.2

10.4 ⫾ 0.8 39.2 5.5 ⫾ 0.3

10.8 ⫾ 1.1 46.1 5.8 ⫾ 0.4

.79 .47 .69

Note. Values reported are means ⫾ standard errors unless otherwise specified. BIS ⫽ Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; Cigs ⫽ cigarettes; prepreg ⫽ prepregnancy; preg ⫽ pregnancy; NWQ ⫽ Nicotine Withdrawal Questionnaire.

total scores. Participant characteristics for the multiple trials are shown in Table 2, and consistent with the single trial, there were no significant differences between the two treatment conditions in any of the baseline sociodemographic or smoking characteristics examined. There were also no significant baseline differences in log k values between the two treatment conditions.

Associations Between Baseline Impulsivity Levels and Other Participant Characteristics For the single trial, baseline log k was significantly associated with two baseline characteristics (i.e., educational attainment and history of depression; see Table 3). BIS total scores were significantly associated in a positive direction with nicotine withdrawal scores, stress ratings, and BDI scores, and in a negative direction with the age that smoking started. When examined across the multiple trials, baseline log k was significantly associated with three baseline characteristics: educational attainment, as in the single trial, as well as living with other smokers and rules against smoking in the home, which were not significant predictors in the single trial (see Table 3). History of depression, which had been a significant predictor in the single trial, was not significant in analyses conducted across the multiple trials.

Univariate Predictors of Smoking Status Univariate predictors of smoking status at the late-pregnancy and 24-week-postpartum assessments are shown in Table 4. In the

single trial, neither baseline log k nor BIS total scores were significantly associated with smoking status at either of those assessments. Treatment condition was significantly associated with 7-day point-prevalence smoking status at the late-pregnancy and 24-week-postpartum assessments. Among other potential moderators, late-pregnancy smoking status was significantly associated with three baseline-smoking characteristics (i.e., number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, number of quit attempts prepregnancy, and number of quit attempts antepartum but prior to treatment entry). Twenty-four-week postpartum smoking status was significantly associated with only the number of antepartum quit attempts prior to treatment entry. In analyses conducted across multiple trials, baseline log k was not significantly associated with smoking status at either of those assessments. Treatment condition was again significantly associated with 7-day point-prevalence smoking status at the latepregnancy and 24-week-postpartum assessments. Among other potential moderators, late-pregnancy smoking status was significantly associated with educational attainment, which was not significant in the single trial. Late-pregnancy abstinence was also associated with four baseline smoking characteristics that were also significant predictors in the single trial (number of cigarettes per day prepregnancy, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, number of quit attempts prepregnancy, and number of quit attempts antepartum but prior to treatment entry); it was also associated with one smoking characteristic that was not a predictor in the single trial (age of first cigarette). There were no other significant univariate associations between participant baseline

LOPEZ, SKELLY, WHITE, AND HIGGINS

102

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 2 Participant Characteristics of Multiple Trials

Sociodemographics Age % ⬍High school education % White Weeks preg at baseline % Primagravida % Working for pay % Private insurance % Married Baseline delay discounting Log k Smoking characteristics Age 1st cigarette Cigs/day prepreg Cigs/day at baseline NWQ Quits attempts during preg % History of quitting prepreg % Living with smokers % No smoking in home % Around none/few smokers Psychiatric characteristics Beck Depression Inventory % History of depression Stress rating (1–10)

Overall

Contingent (n ⫽ 137)

Noncontingent (n ⫽ 99)

p value

24.4 ⫾ 0.3 26.2 93.2 10.1 ⫾ 0.3 56.2 49.6 22.0 16.5

24.6 ⫾ 0.5 28.2 93.4 9.9 ⫾ 0.3 56.6 51.1 25.5 14.6

24.1 ⫾ 0.5 23.5 92.9 10.5 ⫾ 0.4 55.6 47.5 17.2 19.2

.42 .42 .87 .27 .87 .58 .13 .35

⫺6.1 ⫾ 0.2

⫺6.0 ⫾ 0.2

⫺6.2 ⫾ 0.3

.68

14.7 ⫾ 0.2 18.9 ⫾ 0.5 9.0 ⫾ 0.4 1.6 ⫾ 0.1 0.7 ⫾ 0.1 67.4 79.2 48.7 21.2

14.9 ⫾ 0.3 18.8 ⫾ 0.7 8.8 ⫾ 0.5 1.6 ⫾ 0.1 0.8 ⫾ 0.2 69.3 78.8 48.2 22.6

14.4 ⫾ 0.3 19.0 ⫾ 0.8 9.2 ⫾ 0.5 1.5 ⫾ 0.1 0.7 ⫾ 0.2 64.6 79.8 49.5 19.2

.21 .87 .61 .54 .78 .45 .86 .84 .52

10.6 ⫾ 0.5 36.4 5.5 ⫾ 0.2

10.4 ⫾ 0.6 37.2 5.5 ⫾ 0.3

10.8 ⫾ 0.7 35.3 5.6 ⫾ 0.3

.68 .77 .79

Note. Values reported are means ⫾ standard errors unless otherwise specified. Cigs ⫽ cigarettes; NWQ ⫽ Nicotine Withdrawal Questionnaire; preg ⫽ pregnancy; prepreg ⫽ prepregnancy.

characteristics and late-pregnancy or 24-week-postpartum smoking status.

Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting Late-Pregnancy Smoking Status Backward elimination logistic regressions were conducted predicting late pregnancy smoking status with DD, BIS (single trial only), treatment condition, DD ⫻ treatment and BIS ⫻ treatment (single trial only) interaction terms, and all baseline characteristics that were significantly correlated with DD, BIS, or smoking status included (see Table 5). Within the single trial, neither DD nor BIS were retained in the model as main effects or as interaction terms with treatment. Significant predictors that were retained in the model included treatment condition, ␹2 ⫽ 6.40, odds ratio [OR] ⫽ 3.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.35, 10.57], p ⫽ .01, the number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, ␹2 ⫽ 10.15, OR ⫽ 0.47, 95% CI [0.29, 0.75], p ⫽ .001, a history of quit attempts prepregnancy, ␹2 ⫽ 5.17, OR ⫽ 3.72, 95% CI [1.20, 11.54], p ⫽ .02, and nicotine withdrawal scores, ␹2 ⫽ 5.28, OR ⫽ 1.96, 95% CI [1.10, 3.49], p ⫽ .02. Concordance between the predicted probabilities and late-pregnancy smoking status for this model was C ⫽ 0.79, which indicates reasonable concordance (i.e., models are typically considered reasonable when the C statistic is higher than 0.7 and strong when C exceeds 0.8; Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989, 2000). The model based on multiple trials did not retain DD as a main effect or interaction term with treatment, consistent with results from the single trial. Also consistent with results from the model

based on the single trial was retention of treatment condition, ␹2 ⫽ 14.82, OR ⫽ 4.45, 95% CI [2.08, 9.52], p ⬍ .001, the number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, ␹2 ⫽ 15.49, OR ⫽ 0.47, 95% CI [0.33, 0.69], p ⬍ .001, and a history of quit attempts prepregnancy, ␹2 ⫽ 5.36, OR ⫽ 2.54, 95% CI [1.15, 5.61], p ⫽ .02, as significant predictors in the model. Educational attainment was also a significant predictor in this model based on multiple trials, ␹2 ⫽ 4.27, OR ⫽ 0.41, 95% CI [0.17, 0.96], p ⫽ .04, whereas it had not been in the single trial. Note that nicotine withdrawal, which had been included in the final model based on the single trial, was not a significant predictor in this model based on analyses across multiple trials. Concordance between the predicted probabilities and late-pregnancy smoking status for this model was C ⫽ 0.78, which was almost identical with the 0.79 score for the model based on the single trial.

Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting 24-Week-Postpartum Smoking Status The number of antepartum quit attempts prior to treatment entry was the only predictor retained in the backward elimination logistic regression model for the single trial, ␹2 ⫽ 4.41, OR ⫽ 1.39, 95% CI [1.02, 1.88], p ⫽ .04 (Table 6). The concordance for the model was relatively weak (C ⫽ 0.61). Within the analyses based on multiple trials, treatment condition was the only predictor retained in the final backward elimination logistic regression model, ␹2 ⫽ 4.55, OR ⫽ 3.39, 95% CI [1.05, 10.42], p ⫽ .03 (Table 6). Log k was not retained as a main effect or an interaction term with treatment. The concordance for the model was again relatively weak (C ⫽ 0.63).

IMPULSIVITY AND INCENTIVES WITH PREGNANT SMOKERS

103

Table 3 Significant Associations Between Delay Discounting, BIS Total Score, and Baseline Characteristics Mean log k ⫾ SE Single trial Educational attainment Less than high school At least high school History of depression Yes No

t(df)

⫺5.5 ⫾ 0.5 ⫺6.7 ⫾ 0.2 ⫺6.0 ⫾ 0.3 ⫺6.8 ⫾ 0.3

⫺2.24 (112)

.03

⫺2.01 (113)

.05

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Correlation with BIS total score

0.02 ⬍.01 .01 ⬍.01

Mean log k ⫾ SE Multiple trials Educational attainment Less than high school At least high school Living with smokers No Yes No smoking in home Smoking allowed No smoking allowed Note.

p value

⫺0.22 0.27 0.24 0.30

Age 1st cigarette NWQ Stress rating (1–10) Beck Depression Inventory

p value

t(df)

⫺5.5 ⫾ 0.3 ⫺6.2 ⫾ 0.2 ⫺7.0 ⫾ 0.3 ⫺5.9 ⫾ 0.2 ⫺5.7 ⫾ 0.3 ⫺6.5 ⫾ 0.2

p value

⫺2.05 (227)

.04

⫺2.53 (230)

.01

⫺2.06 (230)

.04

BIS ⫽ Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; NWQ ⫽ Nicotine Withdrawal Questionnaire.

Changes in Impulsivity Over Time There were no significant changes in log k from the intake to 24-week-postpartum assessments when examining all participants in the single trial independent of smoking status, F(1, 79) ⫽ 0.08, p ⫽ .78. The same was true within each smoking status group. Among women who were nonsmokers at 24-week-postpartum, mean intake log k was ⫺6.70 (Mdn ED50 ⫽ 2.7), whereas mean 24-weekpostpartum log k was ⫺6.93 (Mdn ED50 ⫽ 1.6), F(1, 79) ⫽ 0.10, p ⫽ .76. Among those who were smokers, mean intake log k was ⫺6.61

(Mdn ED50 ⫽ 2.1) and mean 24-week-postpartum log k was ⫺6.62 (Mdn ED50 ⫽ 1.3), F(1, 79) ⫽ .01, p ⫽ .99. The same analyses were conducted examining changes in DD over time in the multiple trials. There were no significant changes in log k from the intake to 24-week-postpartum assessments when examining all participants independent of smoking status, F(1, 136) ⫽ 0.29, p ⫽ .59. The same was true within each smoking status group. Among women who were nonsmokers at 24-weeks-postpartum, mean intake log k was ⫺6.70 (Mdn ED50 ⫽ 1.6), whereas mean 24-week-

Table 4 Significant Unadjusted Associations of Treatment Condition and Other Participant Characteristics With Point Prevalence Abstinence Late pregnancy

Single trial Treatment C vs. NC Cig/day at baseline (per 5 cigs) Quits pre-pregnancy ⱖ 1 vs. 0 Quits antepartum Multiple trials Treatment C vs. NC Education ⬍ HS vs. ⱖ HS Age of 1st cigarette Cig/day pre-pregnancy (per 5 cigs) Cig/day at baseline (per 5 cigs) Quits pre-pregnancy ⱖ 1 vs. 0 Quits antepartum Note.

cigs ⫽ cigarettes; HS ⫽ high school.

24-week-postpartum

OR [95% CI]

p value

Wald ␹

5.69 7.07 3.87 5.51

3.11 [1.22, 7.91] 0.58 [0.38, 0.86] 2.70 [1.01, 7.25] 1.49 [1.07, 2.09]

.02 ⬍.01 .05 .02

1.69 3.07 0.67 4.41

2.40 [0.64, 8.98] 0.59 [0.32, 1.06] 1.74 [0.46, 6.58] 1.39 [1.02, 1.88]

.19 .08 .41 .04

16.65 4.69 3.66 8.55 13.35 7.12 6.13

4.45 [2.17, 9.13] 0.42 [0.19, 0.92] 1.10 [1.0, 1.22] 0.73 [0.60, 0.90] 0.54 [0.39, 0.75] 2.67 [1.30, 5.50] 1.27 [1.05, 1.52]

⬍.001 .03 .05 ⬍.01 ⬍.01 ⬍.01 .01

4.55 0.39 0.96 1.74 1.13 1.89 0.47

3.39 [1.10, 10.42] 0.70 [0.22, 2.17] 1.08 [0.93, 1.25] 0.81 [0.60, 1.10] 0.65 [0.40, 1.05] 2.2 [0.71, 6.78] 1.06 [0.90, 1.26]

.03 .53 .33 .19 .08 .17 .49

Wald ␹

2

2

OR [95% CI]

p value

LOPEZ, SKELLY, WHITE, AND HIGGINS

104

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 5 Logistic Regressions Predicting Late-Pregnancy Point-Prevalence Abstinence

Single trial Final block Treatment C vs. NC Cigs/day at baseline (per 5 cigs) Quits prepregnancy NWQ Multiple trials Final block Treatment C vs. NC Cigs/day at baseline (per 5 cigs) Quits prepregnancy Education less than HS Note.

Wald ␹2

OR [95% CI]

6.40 10.15 5.17 5.28

3.77 [1.35, 10.57] 0.47 [0.29, 0.75] 3.72 [1.20, 11.54] 1.96 [1.10,⫺3.49]

14.82 15.49 5.36 4.27

4.45 [2.08, 9.52] 0.47 [0.33, 0.69] 2.54 [1.15, 5.61] 0.41 [0.17, 0.96]

.01 .001 .02 .02 ⬍.001 ⬍.001 .02 .04

NWQ ⫽ Nicotine Withdrawal Questionnaire; cigs ⫽ cigarettes; HS ⫽ high school.

postpartum log k was ⫺7.32 (Mdn ED50 ⫽ 3.6), F(1, 136) ⫽ 0.87, p ⫽ .35. Among those who were smokers, mean intake log k was ⫺6.30 (Mdn ED50 ⫽ 1.5), and mean 24-week-postpartum log k was ⫺6.07 (ED50 ⫽ 1.0), F(1, 136) ⫽ .91, p ⫽ .34. There was a significant change in BIS total scores independent of smoking status in the single trial, F(1, 83) ⫽ 5.56, p ⫽ .02. The mean BIS was 66.5 at intake and 63.1 at 24-weeks-postpartum. This trend was observed in both smoking status groups. Among women who were nonsmokers at 24-weeks-postpartum, mean intake BIS was 66.9, whereas mean 24-week-postpartum BIS was 62.4, F(1, 83) ⫽ 2.82, p ⫽ .10. Among those who were smokers, mean intake BIS was ⫺66.1 and mean 24-week-postpartum BIS was 63.8, F(1, 83) ⫽ 4.30, p ⫽ .04.

Discussion The primary purpose of the present study was to thoroughly examine whether response to this incentive-based treatment for smoking cessation during pregnancy and early postpartum was moderated by individual differences in impulsiveness. Impulsiveness was operationalized as DD or BIS scores in the single trial— two commonly used measures of the impulsivity construct in substance abuse and other health research (Bickel et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2014). In analyses across trials, impulsiveness was operationalized as DD. We chose to examine this question as part of a single prospective, randomized clinical trial to bypass the limitations of retrospective studies. We included the analyses based on multiple trials to reduce the likelihood of false-negative results related to a small sample size, and of false-positive results

Table 6 Logistic Regressions Predicting 24-Week-Postpartum Point-Prevalence Abstinence

Single trial Final block Quits antepartum Multiple trials Final block Treatment C vs. NC

p value

Wald ␹2

OR [95% CI]

p value

4.41

1.39 [1.02, 1.88]

.04

4.55

3.39 [1.05, 10.42]

.03

by including a check on the generality of study findings across the single trial and this larger data set. We saw no evidence that individual differences in impulsiveness as measured by either DD or BIS was a significant moderator of smoking cessation outcomes in the single prospective trial or when we examined DD across multiple trials. That is, there was no evidence of a significant main effect of either impulsiveness measure or interactions of them with treatment condition in predicting antepartum or postpartum smoking status. One possible explanation for these negative results is that there may not have been sufficient between-subjects variability in discounting to discern a moderating influence. In considering that possibility, we compared discounting data from the larger data set in the present study with data from two prior studies that we reported, wherein significant associations between DD and drug abstinence were observed (Washio et al., 2011; White et al., 2014). Between-subjects variance across the three studies appears to be quite comparable, with overall median log k and interquartile ranges in the present, Washio et al. (2011), and White et al. (2014) studies being ⫺6.19 and 3.23, ⫺5.49 and 3.58, and ⫺6.52 and 3.00, respectively. A more likely explanation for the negative results may be found in prepregnancy smoking rates. In the White et al. study on spontaneous quitting among pregnant smokers, DD interacted with prepregnancy smoking rate in predicting spontaneous quitting among pregnant women, with greater discounting predicting lower odds of quitting among women with smoking rates less than 10 cigs/day per day but above that rate the odds of quitting were uniformly low across DD levels. On average, women in the present study reported smoking almost 19 cigarettes per day prepregnancy, a rate at which DD had minimal association with spontaneous quitting. To the extent that those results with spontaneous quitting extend to treatment-assisted quitting, the relatively high rates of prepregnancy smoking rates in the present study likely precluded discerning any significant association between discounting rates and the likelihood of quitting antepartum or postpartum. Turning to what did predict abstinence from smoking in the present study, the results are strongest for predicting latepregnancy abstinence. Three variables predicted late-pregnancy smoking abstinence across the single and multiple trials— being assigned to the incentive-bafsed intervention, having lower base-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

IMPULSIVITY AND INCENTIVES WITH PREGNANT SMOKERS

line smoking rates, and having tried to quit smoking prior to the current pregnancy—with the model fit of these predictors being reasonably strong. Having less than 12 years of education was a predictor in analyses based on multiple trials, but not the single trial. Each of those four predictors is consistent with results from earlier examinations of predictors of treatment response in this population (S. T. Higgins et al., 2009). Nicotine withdrawal, by contrast, was a predictor in the single trial in the present study and in an earlier report of predictors of response to this treatment model (S. T. Higgins et al., 2009), but its failure to be retained in the final model collapsing across multiple trials in the present study underscores that the strength of its association with quitting is weaker than the others, and may or may not be included in predictive models, depending on the strength of the others in a particular sample. Regarding 24-week-postpartum abstinence, our ability to predict was relatively weak and certainly weaker than late-pregnancy outcomes. Having made one or more quit attempts during the current pregnancy, but prior to entering treatment, was a positive predictor in the single trial but not across multiple trials, and having received the incentives intervention was the single significant predictor in analyses based on multiple trials. Clearly, the association of prior quit attempts with success in sustaining abstinence through 24 weeks was not sufficiently robust to be retained in the predictive model based on multiple trials. However, as suggested further below, encouraging women to keep trying to quit before and during pregnancy has no evidence of adverse effects associated with it that we know about, and is a prudent course of action with any smoker. The association of the incentives intervention with 24-week abstinence, 12 weeks after incentives were discontinued, is a reliable finding (see S. T. Higgins, Washio, et al., 2012). The absolute abstinence levels are modest (⬃15%), although certainly superior to controls (⬃2% to 3%), and thus whether statistical significance is observed can be expected to vary depending on sample size. We have previously reported other positive postpartum outcomes among women who receive the incentives intervention, including increased breastfeeding duration (T. M. Higgins et al., 2010) and lower rates of depressive symptomatology among women at risk for postpartum depression (Lopez, Skelly, & Higgins, in press). An increased likelihood of sustaining abstinence longer term can be considered another important benefit associated with this treatment model. Because the women included in the present study were all from randomized controlled trials involving common treatment conditions, we can infer a causal relationship of treatment and its effects on antepartum and postpartum smoking status. Of course, we cannot similarly infer causality between the associations of baseline smoking rate, histories of prior quit attempts, or educational attainment with smoking status in the present study. That said, we see little downside to using those associations to further bolster the rationale for encouraging childbearing-aged girls and women who do smoke to reduce their smoking rates as low as possible, and to make attempts to quit smoking prior to and during pregnancy, and to keep trying despite prior failure. Aside from the influence of treatment, we cannot assume that any of these practices will directly lower the likelihood of smoking during pregnancy, but each is reliably and robustly associated with a decreased likelihood of smoking through a pregnancy (S. T. Higgins et al., 2009; Kandel, Gries-

105

ler, & Schaffran, 2009). We know of no evidence of any of these practices being associated with adverse outcomes, nor do we envision their inclusion in comprehensive smoking prevention strategies targeting women somehow co-opting resources that could be better directed at practices with stronger empirical support (S. T. Higgins et al., 2009). Regarding improving outcomes with women who present for treatment with characteristics predicting poor response to this incentives-based treatment model, the utility of higher value incentives, and the possibility of combining incentives with nicotine replacement therapy or other pharmacotherapies, merit consideration (S. T. Higgins, Washio, et al., 2012). In contrast to a prior report indicating that sustained abstinence reduces discounting in a general population of smokers (Secades-Villa et al., 2014), we saw no discernible changes in DD from intake to end of study among abstainers or smokers in the present study. Women in the present study typically entered treatment at approximately 10-weeks gestation, and most who responded to the intervention would have quit smoking within the first 2 weeks of treatment (S. T. Higgins et al., 2006), meaning that many would have been abstinent from smoking for almost 1 year at the time of the 24-week-postpartum assessment. That is comparable with the period of sustained abstinence in the Secades-Villa et al. (2014) study. Yet this length of abstinence was not associated with a significant reduction in DD values in the present study, or in BIS scores, which decreased over time, but independent of smoking status. Important to note is that participants in the Secades-Villa et al. study were assessed 1-year posttreatment, compared with only 3-months posttreatment among participants in the present study. Women in the present study also experienced many unique changes associated with pregnancy and early postpartum in addition to smoking status, such as hormonal fluctuations and stress surrounding the pregnancy and postpartum period, which could have contributed to the different results observed. Further research will be necessary to more fully characterize the extent to which sustained smoking abstinence is associated with reductions in DD and individual differences in who may experience that effect. The present study has several limitations that merit mention, including the exclusive use of women from a small metropolitan area with an almost exclusively Caucasian population, and a sample comprised of women willing to participate in treatmentoutcomes studies. How well this incentivized treatment model and results from the present study on predictors of a positive treatment outcome with this approach generalize to more diverse samples and other treatments and settings is largely an unanswered question, although controlled trials conducted in at least one other U.S. state (Oregon) were positive (Donatelle et al., 2004), and an effectiveness study in at least one other country (Scotland) resulted in positive outcomes (Radley et al., 2013). Considering the broad generality that has been observed with the use of financial incentives to decrease use of other substances (Lussier, Heil, Mongeon, Badger, & Higgins, 2006), as well as other health-related risk behaviors (S. T. Higgins, Silverman, et al., 2012), and because these incentives interventions are based on the fundamental behavioral science principle of reinforcement (S. T. Higgins, Heil, & Lussier, 2004), we are optimistic that this strategy for reducing smoking and associated relationships will have generality to di-

LOPEZ, SKELLY, WHITE, AND HIGGINS

106

verse samples and settings. There have been encouraging developments around the use of this approach with opioid-dependent pregnant women, which is a particularly challenging subgroup of smokers for whom effective treatments are sorely needed (Tuten, Fitzsimons, Chisolm, Nuzzo, & Jones 2012). Another important future challenge in this research effort is getting a larger proportion of women to respond. We hope that increasing understanding about who is and who is not currently benefitting from the intervention, as was done in the present study, will facilitate achievement of that goal.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

References American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2001). Need help putting out that cigarette? Washington, DC: ACOG. Baker, F., Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2003). Delay discounting in current and never-before cigarette smokers: Similarities and differences across commodity, sign, and magnitude. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 382–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.3.382 Barratt, E. S., & Patton, J. H. (1983). Impulsivity: Cognitive, behavioral, and psychophysiological correlates. In M. Zuckerman (Ed.), Biological bases of sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety (pp. 77–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bickel, W. K., Jarmolowicz, D. P., Mueller, E. T., Koffarnus, M. N., & Gatchalian, K. M. (2012). Excessive discounting of delayed reinforcers as a trans-disease process contributing to addiction and other diseaserelated vulnerabilities: Emerging evidence. Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 134, 287–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2012.02.004 Bickel, W. K., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Toward a behavioral economic understanding of drug dependence: Delay discounting processes. Addiction, 96, 73– 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961736.x Bickel, W. K., Miller, M. L., Yi, R., Kowal, B. P., Lindquist, D. M., & Pitcock, J. A. (2007). Behavioral and neuroeconomics of drug addiction: Competing neural systems and temporal discounting processes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 90(Suppl. 1), S85–S91. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.016 Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: Delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146, 447– 454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ PL00005490 Bond, A. J., Verheyden, S. L., Wingrove, J., & Curran, H. V. (2004). Angry cognitive bias, trait aggression and impulsivity in substance users. Psychopharmacology, 171, 331–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213003-1585-9 Bradford, W. D. (2010). The association between individual time preferences and health maintenance habits. Medical Decision Making, 30, 99 –112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09342276 Bradstreet, M. P., Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., Badger, G. J., Skelly, J. M., Lynch, M. E., & Trayah, M. C. (2012). Social Discounting and cigarette smoking during pregnancy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 502–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.750 Dallery, J., & Raiff, B. R. (2007). Delay discounting predicts cigarette smoking in a laboratory model of abstinence reinforcement. Psychopharmacology, 190, 485– 496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-0060627-5 Davis, C., Patte, K., Curtis, C., & Reid, C. (2010). Immediate pleasures and future consequences. A neuropsychological study of binge eating and obesity. Appetite, 54, 208 –213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009 .11.002 Dom, G., Hulstijn, W., & Sabbe, B. (2006). Differences in impulsivity and sensation seeking between early- and late-onset alcoholics. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 298 –308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05 .009

Donatelle, R., Hudson, D., Dobie, S., Goodall, A., Hunsberger, M., & Oswald, K. (2004). Incentives in smoking cessation: Status of the field and implications for research and practice with pregnant smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 6(Suppl. 2), S163–S179. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14622200410001669196 Epstein, L. H., Salvy, S. J., Carr, K. A., Dearing, K. K., & Bickel, W. K. (2010). Food reinforcement, delay discounting and obesity. Physiology & Behavior, 100, 438 – 445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.04 .029 Heil, S. H., Herrmann, E. S., Badger, G. J., Solomon, L. J., Bernstein, I. M., & Higgins, S. T. (2014). Examining the timing of changes in cigarette smoking upon learning of pregnancy. Preventive Medicine, 68, 58 – 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.034 Heil, S. H., Higgins, S. T., Bernstein, I. M., Solomon, L. J., Rogers, R. E., Thomas, C. S., . . . Lynch, M. E. (2008). Effects of voucher-based incentives on abstinence from cigarette smoking and fetal growth among pregnant women. Addiction, 103, 1009 –1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1360-0443.2008.02237.x Heil, S. H., Johnson, M. W., Higgins, S. T., & Bickel, W. K. (2006). Delay discounting in currently using and currently abstinent cocaine-dependent outpatients and non-drug-using matched controls. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1290 –1294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.09.005 Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., Badger, G. J., Skelly, J. M., Solomon, L. J., & Bernstein, I. M. (2009). Educational disadvantage and cigarette smoking during pregnancy. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104(Suppl. 1), S100 – S105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.03.013 Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., Dumeer, A. M., Thomas, C. S., Solomon, L. J., & Bernstein, I. M. (2006). Smoking status in the initial weeks of quitting as a predictor of smoking-cessation outcomes in pregnant women. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 85, 138 –141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .drugalcdep.2006.04.005 Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., & Lussier, J. P. (2004). Clinical implications of reinforcement as a determinant of substance use disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 431– 461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev .psych.55.090902.142033 Higgins, S. T., Silverman, K., Sigmon, S. C., & Naito, N. A. (2012). Incentives and health: An introduction. Preventive Medicine, 55(Suppl.), S2–S6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.04.008 Higgins, S. T., Washio, Y., Heil, S. H., Solomon, L. J., Gaalema, D. E., Higgins, T. M., & Bernstein, I. M. (2012). Financial incentives for smoking cessation among pregnant and newly postpartum women. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 55(Suppl.), S33–S40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011 .12.016 Higgins, S. T., Washio, Y., Lopez, A. A., Heil, S. H., Solomon, L. J., Lynch, M. E., . . . Bernstein, I. M. (2014). Examining two different schedules of financial incentives for smoking cessation among pregnant women. Preventive Medicine, 68, 51–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .ypmed.2014.03.024 Higgins, T. M., Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., Badger, G. J., Skelly, J. M., Bernstein, I. M., . . . Preston, A. M. (2010). Effects of cigarette smoking cessation on breastfeeding duration. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12, 483– 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntq031 Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York, NY: Wiley. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471722146 Isen, J. D., Sparks, J. C., & Iacono, W. G. (2014). Predictive validity of delay discounting behavior in adolescence: A longitudinal twin study. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22, 434 – 443. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037340 Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

IMPULSIVITY AND INCENTIVES WITH PREGNANT SMOKERS Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 129 –146. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-129 Jones, B. A., Landes, R. D., Yi, R., & Bickel, W. K. (2009). Temporal horizon: Modulation by smoking status and gender. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104(Suppl. 1), S87–S93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .drugalcdep.2009.04.001 Kandel, D. B., Griesler, P. C., & Schaffran, C. (2009). Educational attainment and smoking among women: Risk factors and consequences for offspring. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104(Suppl. 1), S24 –S33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.12.005 Lane, S. D., Moeller, F. G., Steinberg, J. L., Buzby, M., & Kosten, T. R. (2007). Performance of cocaine dependent individuals and controls on a response inhibition task with varying levels of difficulty. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33, 717–726. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/00952990701522724 Lopez, A. A., Skelly, J. M., & Higgins, S. T. (in press). Financial incentives for smoking cessation among depression-prone pregnant women: Effects on smoking abstinence and depression ratings. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. Lussier, J. P., Heil, S. H., Mongeon, J. A., Badger, G. J., & Higgins, S. T. (2006). A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction, 101, 192–203. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01311.x MacKillop, J., & Kahler, C. W. (2009). Delayed reward discounting predicts treatment response for heavy drinkers receiving smoking cessation treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104, 197–203. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.04.020 MacKillop, J., Mattson, R. E., Anderson Mackillop, E. J., Castelda, B. A., & Donovick, P. J. (2007). Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in undergraduate hazardous drinkers and controls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 785–788. Madden, G. J., Bickel, W. K., & Jacobs, E. A. (1999). Discounting of delayed rewards in opioid-dependent outpatients: Exponential or hyperbolic discounting functions? Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 7, 284 –293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.7.3.284 Madden, G. J., Petry, N. M., Badger, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (1997). Impulsive and self-control choices in opioid-dependent patients and non-drug-using control participants: Drug and monetary rewards. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 256 –262. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/1064-1297.5.3.256 Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior. Vol. 5: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mitchell, S. H. (1999). Measures of impulsivity in cigarette smokers and non-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146, 455– 464. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/PL00005491 Moeller, F. G., Dougherty, D. M., Barratt, E. S., Oderinde, V., Mathias, C. W., Harper, R. A., & Swann, A. C. (2002). Increased impulsivity in cocaine dependent subjects independent of antisocial personality disorder and aggression. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, 105–111. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00106-0 Moeller, F. G., Dougherty, D. M., Barratt, E. S., Schmitz, J. M., Swann, A. C., & Grabowski, J. (2001). The impact of impulsivity on cocaine use and retention in treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 21, 193–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(01)00202-1 Mueller, E. T., Landes, R. D., Kowal, B. P., Yi, R., Stitzer, M. L., Burnett, C. A., & Bickel, W. K. (2009). Delay of smoking gratification as a laboratory model of relapse: Effects of incentives for not smoking, and relationship with measures of executive function. Behavioural Pharmacology, 20, 461– 473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/FBP.0b013e3283305ec7 Odum, A. L., Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Discounting of delayed health gains and losses by current, never- and ex-smokers of

107

cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 4, 295–303. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14622200210141257 Ohmura, Y., Takahashi, T., & Kitamura, N. (2005). Discounting delayed and probabilistic monetary gains and losses by smokers of cigarettes. Psychopharmacology, 182, 508 –515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213005-0110-8 Patkar, A. A., Murray, H. W., Mannelli, P., Gottheil, E., Weinstein, S. P., & Vergare, M. J. (2004). Pre-treatment measures of impulsivity, aggression and sensation seeking are associated with treatment outcome for African-American cocaine-dependent patients. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 23, 109 –122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J069v23n02_08 Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768 –774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6⬍768:: AID-JCLP2270510607⬎3.0.CO;2-1 Pope, L. (2013). Burn and earn: Incentivizing exercise in first-year college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. Radley, A., Ballard, P., Eadie, D., MacAskill, S., Donnelly, L., & Tappin, D. (2013). Give It Up For Baby: Outcomes and factors influencing uptake of a pilot smoking cessation incentive scheme for pregnant women. BMC Public Health, 13, 343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/14712458-13-343 Reid, R. C., Cyders, M. A., Moghaddam, J. F., & Fong, T. W. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale in patients with gambling disorders, hypersexuality, and methamphetamine dependence. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 1640 –1645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .addbeh.2013.11.008 Rogers, R. D., Moeller, F. G., Swann, A. C., & Clark, L. (2010). Recent research on impulsivity in individuals with drug use and mental health disorders: Implications for alcoholism. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 34, 1319 –1333. Secades-Villa, R., Weidberg, S., García-Rodríguez, O., FernándezHermida, J. R., & Yoon, J. H. (2014). Decreased delay discounting in former cigarette smokers at one year after treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 1087–1093. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.03.015 Sheffer, C., Mackillop, J., McGeary, J., Landes, R., Carter, L., Yi, R., . . . Bickel, W. (2012). Delay discounting, locus of control, and cognitive impulsiveness independently predict tobacco dependence treatment outcomes in a highly dependent, lower socioeconomic group of smokers. The American Journal on Addictions, 21, 221–232. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2012.00224.x Solomon, L., & Quinn, V. (2004). Spontaneous quitting: Self-initiated smoking cessation in early pregnancy. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 6(Suppl. 2), S203–S216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14622200410001669132 Spinella, M. (2004). Neurobehavioral correlates of impulsivity: Evidence of prefrontal involvement. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 95–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207450490249347 Spinella, M. (2007). Normative data and a short form of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. International Journal of Neuroscience, 117, 359 – 368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207450600588881 Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Anderson, N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 385–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008 Stanger, C., Ryan, S. R., Fu, H., Landes, R. D., Jones, B. A., Bickel, W. K., & Budney, A. J. (2012). Delay discounting predicts adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 20, 205–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026543 Steinberg, L., Sharp, C., Stanford, M. S., & Tharp, A. T. (2013). New tricks for an old measure: The development of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-Brief (BIS-Brief). Psychological Assessment, 25, 216 –226. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030550

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

108

LOPEZ, SKELLY, WHITE, AND HIGGINS

Tuten, M., Fitzsimons, H., Chisolm, M. S., Nuzzo, P. A., & Jones, H. E. (2012). Contingent incentives reduce cigarette smoking among pregnant, methadone-maintained women: Results of an initial feasibility and efficacy randomized clinical trial. Addiction, 107, 1868 –1877. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03923.x Vuchinich, R. E., & Simpson, C. A. (1998). Hyperbolic temporal discounting in social drinkers and problem drinkers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 6, 292–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297 .6.3.292 Washio, Y., Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., McKerchar, T. L., Badger, G. J., Skelly, J. M., & Dantona, R. L. (2011). Delay discounting is associated with treatment response among cocaine-dependent outpatients. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 19, 243–248. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0023617 White, T. J., Redner, R., Skelly, J. M., & Higgins, S. T. (2014). Examining educational attainment, prepregnancy smoking rate, and delay discounting as predictors of spontaneous quitting among pregnant smokers. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22, 384 –391. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037492

Winhusen, T., Lewis, D., Adinoff, B., Brigham, G., Kropp, F., Donovan, D. M., . . . Somoza, E. (2013). Impulsivity is associated with treatment non-completion in cocaine- and methamphetamine-dependent patients but differs in nature as a function of stimulant-dependence diagnosis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44, 541–547. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.12.005 Yoon, J. H., & Higgins, S. T. (2008). Turning k on its head: Comments on use of an ED50 in delay discounting research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, 169 –172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007 .12.011 Yoon, J. H., Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., Sugarbaker, R. J., Thomas, C. S., & Badger, G. J. (2007). Delay discounting predicts postpartum relapse to cigarette smoking among pregnant women. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15, 176 –186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10641297.15.2.186

Received July 31, 2014 Revision received November 25, 2014 Accepted December 24, 2014 䡲

Does impulsiveness moderate response to financial incentives for smoking cessation among pregnant and newly postpartum women?

We examined whether impulsiveness moderates response to financial incentives for cessation among pregnant smokers. Participants were randomized to rec...
132KB Sizes 1 Downloads 8 Views