RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Blinding participants to randomization is a cornerstone of science. However, participant beliefs about their allocation can influence outcomes. We examined blind integrity, the association between trial arm belief and cessation, and potential mechanisms linking treatment arm and treatment arm belief among people with major depressive disorder (MDD) who smoke receiving varenicline in a placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: 175 participants were asked at the end of treatment (EOT) if they thought they received placebo, varenicline, or were not sure. We assessed the relationship between treatment arm belief and actual treatment allocation, examined the association between treatment arm belief and EOT cessation, and evaluated changes in craving, withdrawal, side effects, depression symptoms, and smoking reward as mediators through which treatment arm was believed. RESULTS: Treatment arm belief was significantly associated with actual arm assignment (χ2(2)=13.0, p=0.002). Participants in the varenicline arm were >3 times as likely to believe they were taking varenicline, vs. "not sure" (RR=3.05 [1.41-6.60], p=0.005). Participants in the placebo arm were just as likely to believe they were taking placebo vs. "not sure" (χ2[2]=0.75, p=0.69). Controlling for treatment arm, belief that one received varenicline was significantly associated with an increase in cessation rate (OR=5.91 [2.06-16.92], p=0.001). Change in the rewarding experience of smoking may mediate participant ability to discern getting varenicline B=0.077 [0.002-0.192], p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Participants receiving varenicline can discern that they received varenicline and this belief is associated with higher cessation rates. Research is needed to continue to examine how participants correctly identify their allocation to varenicline.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology. METHODS: We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model. RESULTS: From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P < .0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P < .0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004). CONCLUSION: EHR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.