@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/17207，作者=“Siemer, Lutz and Brusse-Keizer, Marjolein G J and Postel, Marloes G and Ben Allouch, Somaya and Sanderman, robert and Pieterse, Marcel E”，标题=“混合或面对面戒烟治疗的依从性及其预测因素:随机对照试验”，期刊=“J Med Internet Res”，年=“2020”，月=“7”，日=“23”，卷=“22”，数=“7”，页=“e17207”，关键词=“混合治疗;戒烟;依从性;预测因子;烟草;背景:面对面和基于网络的混合治疗是一种很有前途的戒烟治疗方法。由于依从性已被证明是治疗可接受性的指标和有效性的决定因素，我们探索并比较了具有相似内容和强度的混合戒烟治疗和面对面单独戒烟治疗的依从性和依从性的预测因素。目的:本研究的目的是:(1)比较混合式戒烟治疗的依从性与面对面治疗的依从性;(2)比较混合治疗与面授模式和网络模式的依从性;(3)确定两种治疗依从性的基线预测因子，以及(4)混合治疗两种模式的预测因子。 Methods: We calculated the total duration of treatment exposure for patients (N=292) of a Dutch outpatient smoking cessation clinic who were randomly assigned either to the blended smoking cessation treatment (n=130) or to a face-to-face treatment with identical components (n=162). For both treatments (blended and face-to-face) and for the two modes of delivery within the blended treatment (face-to-face vs web mode), adherence levels (ie, treatment time) were compared and the predictors of adherence were identified within 33 demographic, smoking-related, and health-related patient characteristics. Results: We found no significant difference in adherence between the blended and the face-to-face treatments. Participants in the blended treatment group spent an average of 246 minutes in treatment (median 106.7{\%} of intended treatment time, IQR 150{\%}-355{\%}) and participants in the face-to-face group spent 238 minutes (median 103.3{\%} of intended treatment time, IQR 150{\%}-330{\%}). Within the blended group, adherence to the face-to-face mode was twice as high as that to the web mode. Participants in the blended group spent an average of 198 minutes (SD 120) in face-to-face mode (152{\%} of the intended treatment time) and 75 minutes (SD 53) in web mode (75{\%} of the intended treatment time). Higher age was the only characteristic consistently found to uniquely predict higher adherence in both the blended and face-to-face groups. For the face-to-face group, more social support for smoking cessation was also predictive of higher adherence. The variability in adherence explained by these predictors was rather low (blended R2=0.049; face-to-face R2=0.076). Within the blended group, living without children predicted higher adherence to the face-to-face mode (R2=0.034), independent of age. Higher adherence to the web mode of the blended treatment was predicted by a combination of an extrinsic motivation to quit, a less negative attitude toward quitting, and less health complaints (R2=0.164). Conclusions: This study represents one of the first attempts to thoroughly compare adherence and predictors of adherence of a blended smoking cessation treatment to an equivalent face-to-face treatment. Interestingly, although the overall adherence to both treatments appeared to be high, adherence within the blended treatment was much higher for the face-to-face mode than for the web mode. This supports the idea that in blended treatment, one mode of delivery can compensate for the weaknesses of the other. Higher age was found to be a common predictor of adherence to the treatments. The low variance in adherence predicted by the characteristics examined in this study suggests that other variables such as provider-related health system factors and time-varying patient characteristics should be explored in future research. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5113; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5113 ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/17207", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2020/7/e17207/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/17207", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32459643" }