Reality Versus Grant Application Research “Plans”
Health Promotion Practice
This article describes the implementation of the American Indian mHealth Smoking Dependence Study focusing on the differences between what was written in the grant application compared to what happened in reality. The study was designed to evaluate a multicomponent intervention involving 256 participants randomly assigned to one of 15 groups. Participants received either a minimal or an intense level of four intervention components: (1) nicotine replacement therapy, (2) precessation counseling, (3) cessation counseling, and (4) mHealth text messaging. The project team met via biweekly webinars as well as one to two in-person meetings per year throughout the study. The project team openly shared progress and challenges and collaborated to find proactive solutions to address challenges as compared to what was planned in the original grant application. The project team used multiple strategies to overcome unanticipated intervention issues: (1) cell phone challenges, (2) making difficult staffing decisions, (3) survey lessons, (4) nicotine replacement therapy, (5) mHealth text messages, (6) motivational interviewing counseling sessions, and (7) use of e-cigarettes. Smoking cessation studies should be designed based on the grant plans. However, on the ground reality issues needed to be addressed to assure the scientific rigor and innovativeness of this study.