English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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, past-month 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.

Utilization, receptivity and reactivity to Interactive Voice Response daily monitoring in risky drinking smokers who are motivated to quit