RESEARCH PAPER
Utilization, receptivity and reactivity to Interactive Voice Response daily monitoring in risky drinking smokers who are motivated to quit
Amy M. Cohn 1  
,  
Hoda Elmasry 2
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Battelle Memorial Institute, Arlington, United States
2
Hoda Elmasry was at the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policies Studies, Washington, United States at the time of data analysis and when the manuscript was submitted
3
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, United States
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Amy M. Cohn   

Battelle Memorial Institute, Arlington, United States
Publish date: 2018-05-30
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(May):25
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology has become an increasingly popular and valid method for collecting Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data on a variety of health-risk behaviors, including daily alcohol use and cigarette smoking, and for stimulating behavior change. However, very little research has evaluated the parameters of IVR compliance and reactivity in respondents who may have greater problem severity than samples previously examined in published IVR studies. This study examined the prevalence and correlates of use, receptivity and reactivity to IVR monitoring in 77 untreated risky drinking smokers who were motivated to quit within the next 6 months.

Methods:
Respondents completed twice daily IVR assessments for 28 days and were re-assessed immediately after IVR to measure receptivity and reactivity to daily monitoring and six months post-baseline.

Results:
Mean compliance rate was 70.6%, with a morning rate of 72.4% and an evening compliance rate of 68.9% out of all possible surveys. IVR assessments of drinking and smoking were significantly associated with baseline paper-pencil reports of the same. African-American participants and those who reported more daily stressful events were more compliant. Between the baseline session and the 6-month follow-up, 68% of the sample reported engaging in some form of smoking behavior change (50% reduction in CPD, a quit attempt, pastmonth continuous abstinence). Nearly 80% reported increased awareness of their behavior due to the IVR and 40% reported intentional behavior change from IVR monitoring. The odds of making a quit attempt at the 6-month follow-up were significantly higher among respondents who reported making purposeful changes to their smoking as a result of IVR monitoring (AOR=3.25, p<0.05).

Conclusions:
Reactivity was associated with behavior change outcomes. IVR may be a useful tool for motivating behavior change in smokers with alcohol-use problems.

 
REFERENCES (51)
1.
Corkrey R, Parkinson L. Interactive voice response: review of studies 1989-2000. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002;34(3):342-353. doi:10.3758/bf03195462
 
2.
Cranford JA, Tennen H, Zucker RA. Feasibility of using interactive voice response to monitor daily drinking, moods, and relationship processes on a daily basis in alcoholic couples. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2010;34(3):499-508. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.01115.x
 
3.
Tucker JA, Simpson CA, Huang J, Roth DL, Stewart KE. Utility of an interactive voice response system to assess antiretroviral pharmacotherapy adherence among substance users living with HIV/AIDS in the rural South. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2013;27(5):280-286. doi:10.1089/apc.2012.0322
 
4.
Mundt J, Bohn MJ, King M, Hartley MT. Automating standard alcohol use assessment instruments via interactive voice response technology. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2002;26(2):207-211. doi:10.1097/00000374-200202000-00007
 
5.
Toll BA, Cooney NL, McKee SA, O'malley SS. Do daily interactive voice response reports of smoking behavior correspond with retrospective reports? Psychol Addict Behav. 2005;19(3):291. doi:10.1037/0893-164x.19.3.291
 
6.
Helzer JE, Badger GJ, Searles JS, Rose GL, Mongeon JA. Stress and alcohol consumption in heavily drinking men: 2 years of daily data using interactive voice response. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2006;30(5):802-811. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00093.x
 
7.
Shiffman S. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in studies of substance use. Psychol Assess. 2009;21(4):486. doi:10.1037/a0017074
 
8.
Conner T, Tennen H, Fleeson W, Barrett L. Experience sampling methods: A modern idiographic approach to personality research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2009;3(3):292-313. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00170.x
 
9.
Shiffman S, Hickcox M, Paty JA, Gnys M, Kassel JD, Richards TJ. Progression from a smoking lapse to relapse: Prediction from abstinence violation effects, nicotine dependence, and lapse characteristics. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(5):993. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.64.5.993
 
10.
LuxSci. Is text messaging HIPAA compliant? http://luxsci.com/blog/is-text.... Published, 2012. Accessed October 12, 2012.
 
11.
Kaminer Y, Litt MD, Burke RH, Burleson JA. An interactive voice response (IVR) system for adolescents with alcohol use disorders: a pilot study. Am J Addict. 2006;15(sup1):122-125. doi:10.1080/10550490601006121
 
12.
Toll BA, Cooney NL, McKee SA, O'Malley SS. Correspondence between Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and Timeline Followback (TLFB) reports of drinking behavior. Addict Behav. 2006;31(4):726-731. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.044
 
13.
Lindsay JA, Minard CG, Hudson S, Green CE, Schmitz JM. Using prize-based incentives to enhance daily interactive voice response (IVR) compliance: A feasibility study. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;46(1):74-77. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.003
 
14.
Stacy JN, Schwartz SM, Ershoff D, Shreve MS. Incorporating tailored interactive patient solutions using interactive voice response technology to improve statin adherence: results of a randomized clinical trial in a managed care setting. Population health management. 2009;12(5):241-254. doi:10.1089/pop.2008.0046
 
15.
Schroder KE, Tucker JA, Simpson CA. Telephone-based self-change modules help stabilize early natural recovery in problem drinkers. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs. 2013;74(6):902. doi:10.15288/jsad.2013.74.902
 
16.
Toll BA, Cooney JL, McKee SA, O'Malley SS, Cooney NL. Correspondence of interactive voice response (IVR) reports of nicotine withdrawal, craving, and negative mood with questionnaire ratings. Nicotine & tobacco research. 2008;10(6):1057-1064. doi:10.1080/14622200802097498
 
17.
Tucker JA, Foushee HR, Black BC. Behavioral economic analysis of natural resolution of drinking problems using IVR self-monitoring. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;16(4):332. doi:10.1037/a0012834
 
18.
Cohn A, Hagman BT, Moore K, Mitchell J, Ehlke S. Does negative affect mediate the relationship between daily PTSD symptoms and daily alcohol involvement in female rape victims? Evidence from 14 days of interactive voice response assessment. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014;28(1):114. doi:10.1037/a0035725
 
19.
Barta W, Tennen H, Litt M. Measurement reactivity in diary research. Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. 2012:108-123.
 
20.
Hufford M, Shields A, Shiffman S, Paty J, Balabanis M. Reactivity to ecological momentary assessment: An example using undergraduate problem drinkers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;16(3):205-211. doi:10.1037//0893-164x.16.3.205
 
21.
Helzer JE, Rose GL, Badger GJ, Searles JS, Thomas CS, Lindberg SA, et al. Using interactive voice response to enhance brief alcohol intervention in primary care settings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2008;69(2):251-258. doi:10.15288/jsad.2008.69.251
 
22.
Rose GL, Skelly JM, Badger GJ, Naylor MR, Helzer JE. Interactive voice response for relapse prevention following cognitive-behavioral therapy for alcohol use disorders: a pilot study. Psychol Serv. 2012;9(2):174. doi:10.1037/a0027606
 
23.
Babor TF, Brown J, del Boca FK. Validity of self-reports in applied research on addictive behaviors: fact or fiction? Behavioral Assessment. 1990.
 
24.
Simpson CA, Huang J, Roth DL, Chandler SD, Tucker JA. Predictors of utilization of an IVR self-monitoring program by problem drinkers with recent natural resolutions. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;126(1):111-117. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.04.022
 
25.
Tucker JA, Roth DL, Huang J, Scott Crawford M, Simpson CA. Effects of interactive voice response self-monitoring on natural resolution of drinking problems: Utilization and behavioral economic factors. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs. 2012;73(4):686-698. doi:10.15288/jsad.2012.73.686
 
26.
Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1-32. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
 
27.
Finn PR, Rickert ME, Miller MA, Lucas J, Bogg T, Bobova L, et al. Reduced cognitive ability in alcohol dependence: examining the role of covarying externalizing psychopathology. J Abnorm Psychol. 2009;118(1):100. doi:10.1037/a0014656
 
28.
Anstey KJ, von Sanden C, Salim A, O'Kearney R. Smoking as a risk factor for dementia and cognitive decline: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(4):367-378. doi:10.1093/aje/kwm116
 
29.
Anthony JC, Echeagaray-Wagner F. Epidemiologic analysis of alcohol and tobacco use-Patterns of co-occurring consumption and dependence in the United States. 2013.
 
30.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Five Year Strategic Plan: FY09-14. Alcohol Across the Lifespan. 2008.
 
31.
Fiore M. Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. Clinical practice guideline. Diane Publishing; 2008.
 
32.
Biener L, Abrams DB. The Contemplation Ladder: validation of a measure of readiness to consider smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 1991;10(5):360. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.10.5.360
 
33.
Biener L, Abrams D. The contemplation ladder: A measure of intention to stop smoking. Health Psychol. 1991;10(5):360-365.
 
34.
Amodei N, Lamb R. Convergent and concurrent validity of the Contemplation Ladder and URICA scales. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;73(3):301-306. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.11.005
 
35.
Miller WR, Tonigan JS. Assessing drinkers' motivation for change: the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Psychol Addict Behav. 1996;10(2):81. doi:10.1037//0893-164x.10.2.81
 
36.
Velicer WF, DiClemente CC, Rossi JS, Prochaska JO. Relapse situations and self-efficacy: An integrative model. Addict Behav. 1990;15(3):271-283. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(90)90070-e
 
37.
Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO. The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 1991;86(9):1119-1127.
 
38.
First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JB. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Patient Edition, January 1995 FINAL. SCID-I/P Version 2.0. New York, NY: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute;1995.
 
39.
Sobell LC, Sobell MB. Timeline Followback user’s guide: A calendar method for assessing alcohol and drug use. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation; 1996.
 
40.
World Health Organization. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Guidelines for use in primary care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
 
41.
Brown RA, Burgess ES, Sales SD, Whiteley JA, Evans DM, Miller IW. Reliability and validity of a smoking timeline follow-back interview. Psychol Addict Behav. 1998;12(2):101. doi:10.1037//0893-164x.12.2.101
 
42.
Shiffman S, Hufford M, Hickcox M, Paty JA, Gnys M, Kassel JD. Remember that? A comparison of real-time versus retrospective recall of smoking lapses. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65(2):292. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.65.2.292.a
 
43.
Kranzler HR, Abu‐Hasaballah K, Tennen H, Feinn R, Young K. Using daily interactive voice response technology to measure drinking and related behaviors in a pharmacotherapy study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2004;28(7):1060-1064. doi:10.1097/01.alc.0000130806.12066.9c
 
44.
Farkas AJ. When does cigarette fading increase the likelihood of future cessation? Ann Behav Med. 1999;21(1):71-76. doi:10.1007/bf02895036
 
45.
Shaw RG, Mitchell-Olds T. ANOVA for unbalanced data: an overview. Ecology. 1993;74(6):1638-1645. doi:10.2307/1939922
 
46.
Tucker JA. Natural resolution of alcohol-related problems. Recent developments in alcoholism. Springer; 2002:77-90.
 
47.
Cohen J. The effect size index: f. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988:284-288.
 
48.
Tucker JA, Foushee HR, Black BC, Roth DL. Agreement between prospective interactive voice response self-monitoring and structured retrospective reports of drinking and contextual variables during natural resolution attempts. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs. 2007;68(4):538-542. doi:10.15288/jsad.2007.68.538
 
49.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BFRSS). http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat.... Published, 2014. Accessed September 13, 2016.
 
50.
Perrine M, Mundt JC, Searles JS, Lester LS. Validation of daily self-reported alcohol consumption using interactive voice response (IVR) technology. J Stud Alcohol. 1995;56(5):487-490. doi:10.15288/jsa.1995.56.487
 
51.
Mundt JC, Kelleher PF, Perrine M, Searles JS. Psychological performance assessment via interactive voice response systems. Behav Res Methods. 1997;29(4):506-518. doi:10.3758/bf03210602
 
eISSN:1617-9625