Cited by 20Smoking Behavior and CessationPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Contingency management versus psychotherapy for prenatal smoking cessation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Open access
Wilson, Sarah M., Newins, Amie R., Medenblik, Alyssa M., Kimbrel, Nathan A., Dedert, Eric A., Hicks, Terrell A., Neal, Lydia C., Beckham, Jean C. +1 more·2018·Women's Health Issues

Abstract

Objective: Prenatal smoking is the leading preventable cause of poor obstetric outcomes, yet treatment options are limited. Past reviews of prenatal smoking cessation have often grouped all counseling into a single category, which ignores the fact that psychotherapy is distinct from brief counseling. The objective of this study was to compare the effect sizes of two intensive interventions for prenatal smoking cessation: contingency management (i.e., financial incentives for abstinence) and psychotherapy. Methods: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of contingency management or psychotherapy was completed using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. Independent raters extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias. Treatment effects were analyzed for three times points: late pregnancy, early postpartum, and late postpartum. Results: The search yielded 22 studies, and meta-analytic results indicated that interventions (compared to control) generally increased the odds of abstinence. Moderator analyses indicated that intervention type (contingency management versus psychotherapy) accounted for variability in effect sizes. When comparing treatment type, effects of contingency management interventions were significantly larger than those of psychotherapeutic interventions. While psychotherapy did not affect smoking abstinence, contingency management interventions had significant treatment effects at all three time points. Conclusions: Contingency management appears to be a safe and efficacious prenatal smoking cessation treatment. Although psychotherapy alone did not show an effect on prenatal smoking abstinence, future research may seek to combine this approach with contingency management to promote prenatal smoking cessation.

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.whi.2018.05.002

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Compared with various controls, behavioral interventions such as in-person advice and support from clinicians; individual- and group-based, telephone and mobile phone-based support; interactive and tailored internet-based interventions; and the use of incentives were associated with increased relative smoking cessation at 6 or more months (15% to 88% range of relative effects).

    “Compared with various controls, behavioral interventions such as in-person advice and support from clinicians;[50](#R50),[56](#R56) individual-[34](#R34) and group-based[57](#R57), telephone[41](#R41) and mobile phone-based support;[69](#R69) interactive and tailored internet-based interventions;[60](#R60) and the use of incentives[47](#R47) were associated with increased relative smoking cess”

    From Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons (2021) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Results (Meta-Analytic Comparison of Intervention Strategies; page unavailable) report that incentive-based interventions significantly increased smoking-abstinence odds at all three measured time points. Methods (Data Extraction; page unavailable) define late postpartum as at least six months after delivery. The source studies pregnant women and reports odds ratios, not the claimed 15%–88% range of relative effects; it does not establish that range for incentives. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Smoking cessation advice from a nurse was associated with a pooled RR of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.21 to 1.38; 44 trials; n=20,881).

    “For example, smoking cessation advice from a physician or nurse was associated with pooled RRs of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.58 to 1.96; 28 trials; n=22,239)[56](#R56) and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.21 to 1.38; 44 trials; n=20,881)[50](#R50), respectively.”

    From Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons (2021) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Results (Systematic Search; page unavailable) report a meta-analysis of 22 prenatal smoking-cessation studies, while the Methods (Trial Selection; page unavailable) say brief advice encounters were excluded. Searches for the stated RR, confidence interval, trial count, and nurse-delivered advice found no passage reporting the attributed estimate. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Higgins JPT, & Green S (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0: The Cochrane Collaboration Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
  2. World Health Organization. (2013). WHO recommendations for the prevention and management of tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure in pregnancy World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/pregnancy/guidelinestobaccosmokeexposure/en 24649520

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, S. M., Newins, A. R., Medenblik, A. M., Kimbrel, N. A., Dedert, E. A., Hicks, T. A., Neal, L. C., Beckham, J. C., & Calhoun, P. S.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Sarah M.
Venue
Women's Health Issues
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-11
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
514-523
ISSN
1049-3867 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2884703701
Cited by
20
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Women s Health Issues (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IK2CX000718, IK2HX002398, IK6 BX003777, IK2CX000525)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH083620)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
contingency management, financial incentives, psychotherapy, smoking abstinence, pregnancy, postpartum period, brief counseling
MeSH terms
Tobacco Smoking, Counseling, Female, Humans, Motivation, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Psychotherapy, Smoking, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Smoking Cessation, Pregnant People

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