Predictors of attrition in a randomized controlled trial of an electronic nicotine delivery system among people interested in cigarette smoking reduction.

BACKGROUND: Mitigating attrition is a key component to reduce selection bias in longitudinal randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Few studies of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) allow for the examination of long-term retention. This analysis explores the relationship between attrition, baseline measures, and condition assigned for a RCT involving ENDS differing in nicotine delivery over a 24-week intervention period. METHODS: Participants (N = 520) who smoked ≥10 cigarettes per day [CPD] for ≥1 year and reported interest in reducing but not quitting were randomized to 1 of 4 conditions: an ENDS containing 0, 8, or 36 mg/ml liquid nicotine (administered double-blind) or a cigarette-shaped plastic tube. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fit to examine attrition over time and predictors of attrition including baseline characteristics and condition. A stepwise approach was used to determine the final model; alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Attrition did not differ significantly by condition (223/520), and most (69%) were lost-to-follow-up. Only age, education level, and household income were significantly predictive of attrition. For every additional year of age, attrition risk fell by 3%. Holding a bachelor's degree or higher was associated with reduced attrition risk. Those with the lowest income (<$10 K) were more likely to be withdrawn compared to those earning $10 K-39 K, and those with the highest income ($100 K+) were more likely to be withdrawn compared with the latter bracket and those earning $70-99 K. CONCLUSION: ENDS nicotine content did not drive differential attrition in this trial, and targeted retention efforts are needed for specific subgroups. Trial Registration #: NCT02342795.

Development of a blueprint for sibling psychosocial services: A nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Siblings of youth with cancer have heightened risk for poor long-term psychosocial outcomes. Although sibling psychosocial care is a standard in pediatric oncology, this standard is among those least likely to be met. To address barriers to providing sibling services, a blueprint for systematic psychosocial screening and support of siblings was developed based on feedback from a national sample of psychosocial providers. PROCEDURE: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of psychosocial care providers (N = 27) of various disciplines working in US pediatric cancer centers, varied in size, type, and extent of sibling support. Interviews queried providers' suggestions for the future of sibling psychosocial care and impressions of a blueprint for sibling service delivery, which was iteratively refined based on respondents' feedback. Interviews were analyzed using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: Based on existing literature and refined according to providers' recommendations, the Sibling Services Blueprint was developed to provide a comprehensive guide for systematizing sibling psychosocial care. The blueprint content includes: (i) a timeline for repeated sibling screening and assessment; (ii) a stepped model of psychosocial support; (iii) strategies for circumventing barriers to sibling care; and (iv) recommendations for how centers with varying resources might accomplish sibling-focused care. The blueprint is available online, allowing providers to easily access and individualize the content. Providers indicated enthusiasm and high potential utility and usability of the blueprint. CONCLUSIONS: The Sibling Services Blueprint may be a useful tool for systematizing sibling psychosocial care, promoting wider availability of sibling-focused services, and addressing siblings' unmet needs.