CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Smoking Behavior and CessationSurvey Methodology and NonresponseSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Engagement and attrition in Internet smoking cessation interventions: insights from a cross-sectional survey of “one-hit-wonders”

Open access
Saul, Jessie E., Amato, Michael S., Cha, Sarah, Graham, Amanda L.·2016·Internet Interventions
DOI 10.1016/j.invent.2016.07.001PMC PMC6096296
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Internet interventions can reach large numbers of individuals. However, low levels of engagement and high rates of follow-up attrition are common, presenting major challenges to evaluation. This study investigated why registrants of an Internet smoking cessation intervention did not return after joining ("one hit wonders"), and explored the impact of graduated incentives on survey response rates and responder characteristics. METHODS: A sample of "one hit wonders" that registered on a free smoking cessation website between 2014 and 2015 were surveyed. The initial invitation contained no incentive. Subsequent invitations were sent to random subsamples of non-responders from each previous wave offering $25 and $50 respectively. Descriptive statistics characterized respondents on demographic characteristics, reasons for not returning, and length of time since last visit. Differences were investigated with Fisher's Exact tests, Kruskal-Wallis, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 8779 users who received the initial invitation, 132 completed the survey (1.5%). Among those subsequently offered a $25 incentive, 127 (3.7%) responded. Among those offered a $50 incentive, 97 responded (5.7%). The most common reasons endorsed for not returning were being unable to quit (51%), not having enough time (33%), having forgotten about the website (28%), and not being ready to quit (21%). Notably, however, 23% reported not returning because they had successfully quit smoking. Paid incentives yielded a higher proportion of individuals who were still smoking than the $0 incentive (72% vs. 61%). Among $0 and $25 responders, likelihood of survey response decreased with time since registration; the $50 incentive removed the negative effect of time-since-registration on probability of response. CONCLUSIONS: One third of participants that had disengaged from an Internet intervention reported abstinence at follow-up, suggesting that low levels of engagement are not synonymous with treatment failure in all cases. Paid incentives above $25 may be needed to elicit survey responses, especially among those with longer intervals of disengagement from an intervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.invent.2016.07.001

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rodgers W. Size of incentive effects in a longitudinal study Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association 2002 American Statistical Association Washington, DC 2930 2935

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Saul, J. E., Amato, M. S., Cha, S., & Graham, A. L.
Affiliations
Truth Initiative (US)
Corresponding author
Graham, Amanda L.
ORCID
Venue
Internet Interventions
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
5
Pages
23-29
ISSN
2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.invent.2016.07.001
PMC
PMC6096296
OpenAlex
W2463276822
Cited by
39
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Truth Initiative
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
smoking cessation, user engagement, attrition, survey response rates, abstinence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review