Abstract
Background
Financial distress is a barrier to cessation among low-income smokers.
Objective
To evaluate an intervention that integrated financial coaching and benefits referrals into a smoking cessation program for low-income smokers.
Design
Randomized waitlist control trial conducted from 2017 to 2019.
Participants
Adult New York City residents were eligible if they reported past 30-day cigarette smoking, had income below 200% of the federal poverty level, spoke English or Spanish, and managed their own funds. Pregnant or breastfeeding people were excluded. Participants were recruited from two medical centers and from the community.
Intervention
The intervention (n = 208) offered smoking cessation coaching, nicotine replacement therapy, money management coaching, and referral to financial benefits and empowerment services. The waitlist control (n=202) was usual care during a 6-month waiting period.
Main Measures
Treatment engagement, self-reported 7-day abstinence, and financial stress at 6 months.
Key Results
At 6 months, intervention participants reported higher abstinence (17% vs. 9%, P=0.03), lower stress about finances (β, −0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.02), and reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (β, −0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.04). Outcomes were stronger among participants recruited from the medical centers (versus from the community). Among medical center participants, the intervention was associated with higher abstinence (20% vs. 8%, P=0.01), higher satisfaction with present financial situation (β, 1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.01), reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (β, −1.0 [SE, 0.5], P=0.04), reduced frequency in getting by paycheck-to-paycheck (β, −1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.03), and lower stress about finances in general (β, −1.0 [SE, 0.4], P = 0.02). There were no group differences in outcomes among people recruited from the community (P>0.05).
Conclusions
Among low-income smokers recruited from medical centers, the intervention produced higher abstinence rates and reductions in some markers of financial distress than usual care. The intervention was not efficacious with people recruited from the community.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03187730
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
INTRODUCTION
People with low income (defined as an annual household income below 150–200% of the federal poverty level, FPL1,2) are three times more likely to smoke than people with high income.3,4,5 The income disparity in tobacco use has persisted over the past 50 years and is one of the greatest remaining tobacco control disparities.6 People with low income are as interested in quitting, but less likely to be successful than people with high income.3 Novel interventions are needed to address the unique needs and barriers to quitting low-income smokers.7,8,9
Tobacco use and financial hardship are linked through two circular pathways.10,11,12 Tobacco use exacerbates financial hardship by limiting funds available to pay for essentials.13,14,15 Low-income smokers can spend 10–30% of their household budget on tobacco, resulting in smoking-induced deprivation or going without essentials because of money spent on tobacco.15,16 Conversely, the distress associated with financial insecurity and deprivation can lead one to smoke as a coping mechanism.11,17,18 Given this cyclic relationship, interventions that address both smoking and financial hardship may have synergistic effects.
Behavioral economics further finds that people experiencing resource scarcity must focus on immediate needs,19 leaving little time or attention to work on issues that benefit the future, such as quitting smoking.20 Prior research has found that low-income smokers can be more responsive to financial messaging to quit than health messaging,21 because financial messaging aligns quitting with the immediate needs of financially strained smokers.22,23,24
Thus, interventions that alleviate financial distress and align smoking cessation with the immediate needs of low-income smokers may improve their quit rates. To explore this hypothesis, the current study sought to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of an intervention that integrated financial coaching into a smoking cessation program for low-income smokers.
METHODS
Setting and Participants
The NYU Langone Health IRB approved the study (#s16-02177). The study was funded through a mechanism devoted toward improving low-income immigrant health. During the first four months of recruitment, enrollment was limited to low-income immigrants. However, potential participants expressed discomfort in disclosing their place of birth during screening. To improve participant comfort and remove questions about immigration from the screener, we expanded eligibility to people born within the US. The final eligibility criteria were as follows: New York City (NYC) resident; aged >17 years; smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days; household income below 200% of the FPL; spoke English or Spanish; and managed their own funds. People were excluded for pregnancy or breastfeeding. Readiness to quit and interest in receiving cessation coaching or financial services were not required.
Recruitment and Randomization
Recruitment occurred from September 2017 through February 2019. Recruitment began at two safety-net medical centers in NYC using flyers in clinic waiting rooms, proactive outreach to people identified as smokers in the electronic medical record, and provider referrals. Enrollment delays led to the expansion of recruitment from the broader NYC community. The team placed bi-lingual (English, Spanish) study advertisements in free local newspapers. After confirming eligibility, participants signed an IRB-approved informed consent form. Following a baseline assessment, a research assistant randomized participants 1:1 to intervention or control (stratified by site) using randomization envelopes created by the statistician (BW).
Intervention
The intervention offered up to nine sessions of individual counseling. The first two sessions occurred in offices at participating sites. The remaining sessions were on-site or over the phone, depending on participant preference and needs. The study provided participants with subway cards to reimburse travel to in-person sessions, but participants did not receive compensation for participating in counseling
Table 1 provides an overview of the intervention’s schedule and how the intervention components (smoking and financial) were integrated and covered during each session. All intervention participants received a base program that included evidence-based smoking cessation coaching to help them develop an individualized quit plan.25,26,27 The coaching used problem-solving therapy26 to enhance motivation and efficacy, learn from prior quit attempts, identify and cope with triggers, and address environmental barriers. The protocol included planning (pre-quit), quit date, and follow-up (post-quit) content. The composition of planning, quit date, and follow-up content depended on each participant’s quit progress. Participants were also offered a free 4-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Participants smoking less than 10 cigarettes per day received a single NRT (patch, gum, or lozenge). Participants smoking 10 or more cigarettes per day received combination NRT (patch plus gum or lozenge). The intervention integrated two financial coaching components into the cessation coaching sessions:
-
(1)
Screening and referral for financial benefits and empowerment programs: During the first session, counselors offered to screen participants for benefits using the “NYC Access” website—a centralized resource for identifying city, state, and federal programs. The counselors also offered to schedule participants an appointment with a NYC Financial Empowerment Center (FEC) to receive counseling to help with major financial issues. FEC counseling is free and confidential, regardless of income or immigration status. For participants who declined these services during session 1, the counselor offered them again at each subsequent session.
-
(2)
Money management coaching: Participants were offered money management coaching following a protocol adapted from a money management-based substance use intervention.28 The coaching followed best practices in financial coaching by working with participants longitudinally to develop and work toward client-centered goals.29,30 The coaching had two primary objectives: (1) To help participants create and maintain a household budget to meet short- and long-term goals and (2) To highlight and reinforce the link between tobacco cessation and the participant’s goals through the release of discretionary income spent on tobacco. The counselors helped participants create an ideal monthly budget and identify three goals that they would work on during the coaching. Participants were encouraged to set at least one short-term goal that could serve as an immediate reward for quitting. Tobacco spending and savings were discussed during each session to reinforce the link between quitting smoking and achieving one’s goals.
Interventionist Training
For each participant, a single counselor provided the entire intervention, so that the cessation coaching and financial coaching could be fully integrated. The three intervention counselors were bi-lingual, native speakers of both English and Spanish. The lead counselor was a licensed mental health counselor (LMHC) and had been a tobacco cessation counselor for over 8 years. The other two counselors were Masters-level trainees (LMHC and licensed master social worker). The PI developed a structured intervention manual that integrated the NYC Access, FEC referral, and money management coaching protocols into a smoking cessation coaching manual tested in prior RCTs.25,27,31,32,33 The counselors received multi-day trainings in delivering the intervention, including didactic training about tobacco use, tobacco treatment guidelines, and financial coaching, and review of the intervention protocols. The counselors completed role-plays before working with participants. Counselors used standardized forms to document each session including its length, content covered, referrals completed, and NRT provision. Intervention cases were discussed during regular supervision meetings.
Waitlisted Control
Given the existence of clinical practice guidelines for tobacco use treatment that recommend multi-session counseling and pharmacotherapy,26 a no-treatment or minimal control condition was considered unethical for a trial recruiting marginalized smokers. Conversely, given that this was the first effort to integrate financial coaching into a smoking cessation program, conducting a large effectiveness trial powered to compare the intervention to existing intensive tobacco treatment models was considered premature. Therefore, control participants received the intervention after a 6-month waiting period, during which time they could receive usual cessation services from providers or the community (e.g., Quitline).
Outcomes
Outcomes were treatment engagement and satisfaction, self-reported 7-day abstinence from cigarettes (“not even a puff”) at 6 months, and financial stress at 6 months.
Assessments and Measures
Participants completed an in-person survey after enrollment (before randomization) assessing sociodemographics, current smoking,34 cigarette spending, nicotine dependence,35 smoking-induced deprivation,36 and financial stress using the 8-item InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-being Scale (IFDFW).37 For Spanish-speaking participants, the survey used published Spanish translations of sociodemographic, tobacco use, and IFDFW measures.38,39 A native Spanish-speaking member of the team translated measures not available in Spanish. Participants completed in-person or telephone surveys at 6 months with a blinded research assistant. The first 85 intervention participants were asked to complete an interim 2-month (post-treatment) survey assessing intervention satisfaction and experience. Participants were paid $10 cash for each survey.
Statistical Analysis
Participant characteristics, treatment engagement, satisfaction, and outcomes data were summarized (e.g., means, standard deviations, frequencies). Logistic regressions compared groups on the primary cessation outcome using a complete case (respondents only) approach and an intent-to-treat (ITT) approach that treated non-respondents as smokers. An overall IFDFW score was calculated for each participant at baseline and follow-up by summing the 8-item scores and dividing them by 8. Linear regressions compared groups on the overall IFDFW scores and the individual item scores while controlling for baseline IFDFW scores.
During the study’s supervision meetings, the interventionists noted that participants recruited from the community were less likely to begin the intervention than participants recruited from the medical centers. Therefore, we conducted post hoc subgroup analyses exploring treatment engagement and outcomes by recruitment source. A two-sided P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. Data were analyzed in 2020.
Sample Size
We estimated that the abstinence rate in the control group would be 10% based on previous research.40 A sample of 600 was sought to provide 80% power to statistically detect a 10% increase (10% vs. 20%) in abstinence in the intervention group (at α = 0.05). Study start-up and recruitment delays resulted in a smaller sample size than planned.
RESULTS
Recruitment and Retention
Staff screened 1,932 people, 1,152 (60%) of whom were ineligible (Figure 1). Of the 780 eligible, 88 (11%) declined participation, and 288 (37%) scheduled—but did not attend—their consent appointment. In total, 414 participants enrolled. We excluded four people from analysis who signed consent but later reported not smoking on the baseline survey. The final analytic sample was 410 participants (n = 208 intervention, n = 202 control).
Participant Characteristics
Most participants were male (65%), Black or African American (54%), had a high school education or less (59%), and had Medicaid insurance (60%; Table 2). Participants’ mean age was 51 (SD = 12) years and participants had an average annual income of $13,641 (SD = $10,061). Nearly all (95%) participants were daily smokers and 50% had tried to quit in the past year. Participants smoked on average 12 cigarettes per day (SD = 7) and spent on average $181 (SD = $121) per month on cigarettes.
Intervention Engagement and Satisfaction
One hundred sixteen (56%) intervention group participants began the intervention (i.e., met with a counselor at least once). Participants recruited from the medical centers were more likely to begin than community participants (69% vs. 32%, P<0.001). Overall, intervention participants completed on average two sessions (SD = 2.5) and spent 99 min (SD = 117) in counseling. Among those who began the intervention, participants completed on average four sessions (SD = 2.5) and spent 178 min (SD = 103) in counseling. The first two sessions were longest, averaging 71 min (SD = 25); the remaining sessions averaged 24 min (SD = 16).
Table 3 shows that 116 (56%) intervention participants received cessation coaching, 99 (48%) received money management coaching, 94 (46%) received NRT, 55 (27%) completed NYC Access screening, and 42 (20%) scheduled an FEC appointment. In contrast, 6-month survey data showed that 34 (17%) control participants received cessation coaching, 46 (23%) used cessation medications, 13 (6%) used the NYC Access portal, and two (1%) attended an FEC appointment during their 6-month waiting period (P<0.01).
Of the 85 intervention participants asked to complete a 2-month survey, 62 (73%) responded, 45 (73%) of whom had received at least one counseling session (Table 4). Eighty-four percent of respondents were “very satisfied” overall with the intervention, 93% were “very/somewhat” satisfied with the smoking cessation coaching, and 80% were “very/somewhat” satisfied with the financial coaching. Fifty-one percent of participants felt the number of sessions they received was “just right,” while 36% wanted more sessions.
Smoking and Financial Outcomes
Intervention participants were more likely to report 7-day abstinence using a complete case approach (27% vs. 13%, P<0.01) and ITT approach (17% vs. 9%, P<0.05; Table 4). Intervention participants also reported lower stress about personal finances in general (P=0.02) and reduced frequency of being unable to afford leisure activities (P=0.04). Group differences in the remaining IFDFW domains were in the hypothesized directions but were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Among the 35 intervention participants who had quit, 25 (71%) achieved at last one post-quit financial goal. Table 5 displays the relationships between use of the intervention components and abstinence, adjusting for baseline quit motivation, confidence, and nicotine addiction. Intervention participants were more likely to quit if they received cessation coaching (24% vs. 8%, P<0.01), accepted an FEC referral (29% vs. 14%, P=0.03), or received money management coaching (23% vs. 11%, P=0.02).
Subgroup Analyses
Appendix Table 1 shows that among people recruited from the medical centers, intervention participants were more likely to report 7-day abstinence (complete case: 28% vs. 10%, P=0.002 and ITT: 20% vs. 8%, P=0.01). Intervention participants also reported lower stress about personal finances in general (P=0.02), lower frequency of being unable to afford leisure activities (P=0.04), lower frequency of having to get by paycheck-to-paycheck (P=0.03), and higher satisfaction with their present financial situation (P=0.01). Of the 27 medical center participants in the intervention group who had quit smoking by 6 months, 16 (69%) achieved at last one post-quit financial goal. There were no significant group differences in any outcome among participants recruited from the community (P>0.05, data not shown).
DISCUSSION
This is one of the first RCTs to intervene upon the socioeconomic challenges faced by low-income smokers. The study found higher abstinence rates and lower markers of financial distress among participants randomized to the intervention. The study’s odds ratios of 2.8–3.4 estimating the intervention’s impact on cessation are larger than many prior RCTs with low-income smokers.41,42,43 A 2019 meta-analysis reported a pooled risk ratio of 1.56 (95%CI 1.39–1.75) for the effectiveness of cessation interventions for low-SES groups.43 The study’s quit rates are not as strong as a recent RCT published by Vidrine et al., who found that combining NRT with multi-session telephone counseling doubled quit rates (26%) among low-SES smokers compared to NRT alone (12%).42 However, their trial was limited to smokers who were willing to set a quit date within 1 week of enrollment, whereas the current study did not require readiness to quit. Our results are similar to the only previous RCT to our knowledge to test a cessation intervention that incorporated referrals to social services. Haas et al. tested an intervention for low-SES smokers that offered telephone counseling, NRT, and referral to community-based resources. At 9 months, their intervention group had higher self-reported 7-day abstinence than a usual care group, and participant use of the resources referral was associated with higher abstinence rates. The current study extends their work by demonstrating that integrating financial coaching and social services referrals into a cessation program can improve both smoking and financial outcomes.
There is limited rigorous research evaluating financial coaching programs,29 but this study’s results are largely consistent with published research.29,40,44 Theodos et al. found that among people randomized to receive financial coaching from community organizations, only 37–56% (depending on location) began coaching, and most completed 1–2 sessions. Consistent with the current trial, Theodos et al. further found that participants randomized to receive financial coaching reported progress toward attaining financial goals and had 0.4–0.5-point reductions in financial stress, frequency of being unable to afford to go out to eat, and financial dissatisfaction.44 Observational and case study research has similarly reported that financial coaching can have positive impacts on financial goal attainment and increases in budgeting and savings.29
The intervention did not impact participants’ confidence in paying for a $1000 emergency or their worry about monthly expenses.30,44 This may be due to the intervention’s limited ability to alleviate poverty itself or due to participants’ modest intervention uptake. Of note, the intervention was not efficacious among participants recruited from the community, very few of whom began treatment. People recruited from the community were also more likely to be unemployed and living in homeless shelters and thus living in financial crisis. Financial coaching is commonly recommended only for people who have stable financial stressors and who can benefit from longitudinal client-centered goal setting. Directive, crisis-focused financial counseling—such as that provided by the FECs—is more suitable for people experiencing financial emergencies.29,44 Thus, increasing the intervention’s impact on financial outcomes will require increasing overall intervention engagement and uptake of the FEC referrals in particular.
Among participants who began the intervention, money management coaching was the most popular financial component of the intervention (received by 85%) and the most feasible to integrate within the cessation coaching process. The study counselors reported barriers to participant uptake of the benefits screening and FEC referrals that have been reported in the literature.44 These included time and geographic constraints, a reluctance to discuss finances or admit a need for financial assistance, and hesitation about being referred to government-based programs. Future research should examine the feasibility and efficacy of referring participants to non-governmental financial services or mobile financial coaching programs.45
Limitations
Readers should interpret results with caution. Abstinence was not biochemically verified. The study occurred in a single, high-cost city with robust social services. There was also considerable drop-off from screening to eligibility and completion, limiting generalizability and highlighting barriers to participation. Further to this, the two-group waitlist control design does not allow us to disentangle the impacts of the individual intervention components. Future multi-group RCTs should study the impact of the financial components on outcomes above-and-beyond standard intensive cessation treatment. Lastly, although the IDWFW is acceptable to use with Spanish-speaking clients,39 the cultural appropriateness of the scale is not validated.
CONCLUSIONS
The current findings have relevance to discussions about addressing sociocontextual determinants of smoking and integrating social needs screening and referrals into health programs.46,47 Results were robust despite the modest treatment engagement rates, suggesting that the intervention is a promising approach for assisting low-income smokers with both health and financial needs and warrants further investigation.
REFERENCES
National Center for Children in Poverty BSGSoE. United States Demographics of Low-Income Children. 2021
Government US Community Services Block Grant Act In: Labor Do, ed. 42. Vol U.S. Code §9902
Barbeau EM, Krieger N, Soobader MJ. Working class matters: socioeconomic disadvantage, race/ethnicity, gender, and smoking in NHIS 2000. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(2):269-278.
Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker JM, Watson KA. The consequences of high cigarette excise taxes for low-income smokers. PLoS One 2012;7(9):e43838
Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Vital signs: current cigarette smoking among adults aged >/=18 years--United States, 2005-2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60(35):1207-1212
Services USDoHaH. Disparities Overview by Income. 2014; https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/data/disparities/summary/Chart/5287/6.1. .
Bryant J, Bonevski B, Paul C, McElduff P, Attia J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions in selected disadvantaged groups. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2011;106(9):1568-1585
Michie S, Jochelson K, Markham WA, Bridle C. Low-income groups and behaviour change interventions: a review of intervention content, effectiveness and theoretical frameworks. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63(8):610-622.
Fu SS, van Ryn M, Burgess DJ, et al. Proactive tobacco treatment for low income smokers: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2014;14:337.
Siahpush M, Spittal M, Singh GK. Association of smoking cessation with financial stress and material well-being: results from a prospective study of a population-based national survey. Am J Public Health 2007;97(12):2281-2287.
Siahpush M, Carlin JB. Financial stress, smoking cessation and relapse: results from a prospective study of an Australian national sample. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2006;101(1):121-127
Kim-Mozeleski JE, Poudel KC, Tsoh JY. Examining Reciprocal Effects of Cigarette Smoking, Food Insecurity, and Psychological Distress in the U.S. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2020:1-8.
Siahpush M, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Fong GT. Tobacco expenditure, smoking-induced deprivation and financial stress: results from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four-Country Survey. Drug Alcohol Rev 2012;31(5):664-671.
Busch SH, Jofre-Bonet M, Falba TA, Sindelar JL. Burning a hole in the budget: tobacco spending and its crowd-out of other goods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004;3(4):263-272.
Rogers ES, Gallo WT, Dave D. The effects of tobacco cessation on the consumption of food and alcohol: Results from the 2006 - 2012 U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey. Manuscriptin preparation 2015
Rogers EJAjohb. Financial Distress and Smoking-induced Deprivation in Smokers with Depression. 2019;43 1:219-227
Caleyachetty A, Lewis S, McNeill A, Leonardi-Bee J. Struggling to make ends meet: exploring pathways to understand why smokers in financial difficulties are less likely to quit successfully. Eur J Public Health 2012;22 Suppl 1:41-48.
Benson FE, Kuipers MA, Nierkens V, Bruggink JW, Stronks K, Kunst AE. Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking in The Netherlands before and during the Global Financial Crisis: a repeated cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2015;15:469.
Bickel WK, Marsch LA. Toward a behavioral economic understanding of drug dependence: delay discounting processes Addiction (Abingdon, England) 2001;96(1):73-86
Mullainathan S, Shafir E. Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York, NY, US: Times Books/Henry Holt and Co; 2013.
Sindelar JL, O’Malley SS. Financial versus health motivation to quit smoking: a randomized field study. Preventive medicine 2014;59:1-4.
Radu PT, Yi R, Bickel WK, Gross JJ, McClure SM. A mechanism for reducing delay discounting by altering temporal attention. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 2011;96(3):363-385.
Chivers LL, Higgins ST. Some observations from behavioral economics for consideration in promoting money management among those with substance use disorders. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse 2012;38(1):8-19.
Sheffer C, Mackillop J, McGeary J, et al. Delay discounting, locus of control, and cognitive impulsiveness independently predict tobacco dependence treatment outcomes in a highly dependent, lower socioeconomic group of smokers. The American journal on addictions / American Academy of Psychiatrists in Alcoholism and Addictions 2012;21(3):221-232.
Rogers ES, Smelson DA, Gillespie CC, et al. Telephone Smoking-Cessation Counseling for Smokers in Mental Health Clinics: A Patient-Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Prev Med 2016;50(4):518-527.
Fiore MC JC, Baker TB, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service; 2008.
Rogers ES, Fu SS, Krebs P, et al. Proactive Tobacco Treatment for Smokers Using Veterans Administration Mental Health Clinics. Am J Prev Med 2018.
Black AC, Rosen MI. A money management-based substance use treatment increases valuation of future rewards. Addict Behav 2011;36(1-2):125-128.
Financial Coaching: Review of Existing Research. 2015.
Collins JM, O’Rourke CM. The Application of Coaching Techniques to Financial Issues. Journal of Financial Therapy 2012;3(2):39-56.
Young HM, Lierman L, Powell-Cope G, Kasprzyk D, Benoliel JQ. Operationalizing the theory of planned behavior. Research in nursing & health 1991;14(2):137-144.
Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology and Health 1998;13(4):623-649.
Sherman SE, Link AR, Rogers ES, et al. Smoking-Cessation Interventions for Urban Hospital Patients: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial. Am J Prev Med 2016;51(4):566-577.
California Department of Public Health TCP. California Adult Tobacco Survey. 2008
Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Br J Addict 1991;86(9):1119-1127.
Siahpush M, Borland R, Yong HH. Sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates of smoking-induced deprivation and its effect on quitting: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Tobacco control 2007;16(2):e2
Prawitz AD, Garman, E.T., Sorhaindo, B., O’Neill, B, Kim, J., Drentea, P. In charge financial distress/financial well-being scale: development, administration, and score interpretation. Financial Counseling and Planning 2006;17(1):34–50.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse aUSDoHaHSFaDA. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study 2013-2016 In. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2013-2016
Garman ET MB, Hunt H, Shatwell P, Haynes G, Hanson KC, Hanson E, Olson P, Woehler MB. Progress in Measuring Changes in Financial Distress and Financial Well-being as a Result of Financial Literacy Programs Consumer Interests Annual. 2007;53:199-211.
Haas JS, Linder JA, Park ER, et al. Proactive Tobacco Cessation Outreach to Smokers of Low Socioeconomic Status: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA internal medicine 2015;175(2):218-226.
Fu SS, van Ryn M, Nelson D, et al. Proactive tobacco treatment offering free nicotine replacement therapy and telephone counselling for socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers: a randomised clinical trial. Thorax 2016;71(5):446-453.
Vidrine DJ, Frank-Pearce SG, Vidrine JI, et al. Efficacy of Mobile Phone-Delivered Smoking Cessation Interventions for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Individuals: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA internal medicine. 2019;179(2):167-174.
Kock L, Brown J, Hiscock R, Tattan-Birch H, Smith C, Shahab L. Individual-level behavioural smoking cessation interventions tailored for disadvantaged socioeconomic position: a systematic review and meta-regression. The Lancet Public health 2019;4(12):e628-e644.
Theodos B, Simms M, Treskon M, et al. An Evaluation of the Impacts and Implementation Approaches of Financial Coaching Programs. 2015.
Collins MJ, O’Rourke C, Nafziger M. Financial coaching and medication adherence: the potential for a new model. Center for Financial Security;2017
Sundar KR. Universal Screening for Social Needs in a Primary Care Clinic: A Quality Improvement Approach Using the Your Current Life Situation Survey. The Permanente journal 2018;22:18-089.
Andermann A. Screening for social determinants of health in clinical care: moving from the margins to the mainstream. Public health reviews 2018;39:19-19.
Funding
This study was supported by the Robin Hood Foundation (no grant number).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All study contributors are listed as authors.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Prior Presentations
2019 Annual Meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 66.6 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rogers, E.S., Rosen, M.I., Elbel, B. et al. Integrating Financial Coaching and Referrals into a Smoking Cessation Program for Low-income Smokers: a Randomized Waitlist Control Trial. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 2973–2981 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07209-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07209-2