Dataset Information

Which smokers use the smoking cessation Quitline in Hong Kong, and how effective is the Quitline?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe the characteristics of the Chinese subjects who utilised the first telephone smoking cessation service in Hong Kong, and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Methods

The Quitline provided Hong Kong residents with free telephone smoking cessation services which was publicised through a press conference, media reports, pamphlets, and posters at public and private hospitals and clinics. Callers who completed an initial interview from 13 December 2000 to 31 May 2002 were included. Smokers were interviewed using a structured record sheet and provided with stage matched counselling. A follow up interview was carried out after six months. Analysis was conducted by intention-to-treat.

Results

Of the 1120 callers who completed initial assessments, 1047 were current smokers and 872 consented to follow ups. Compared to the general smoking population, the Quitline attracted more of those who were female, younger, single, unemployed, higher educated, smoking more than 20 cigarettes per day, and those with quitting experience. At six months, 12% (95% confidence interval 10% to 15%) of the participants reported that they had not smoked a cigarette for the past seven days. A stepwise logistic regression model showed that the use of nicotine replacement therapy at the present attempt to quit, having made one or more serious attempts to quit in the past, perceiving less difficulties in quitting, and smoking the first cigarette at age 15 years or above were significant predictors of quitting.

Conclusion

This first Quitline in Asia appears to be acceptable to Chinese smokers, with quit rate comparable to those of better funded Quitlines in the West. A low cost Quitline is a promising model for smoking cessation services in the East.

SUBMITTER: Abdullah AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1747959 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinicians have an opportunity to provide smoking cessation interventions to smokers who present to emergency departments (EDs). The effectiveness of a brief intervention based on self-determination theory for smoking cessation is uncertain.ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of a brief intervention based on self-determination theory for smoking cessation (immediate or progressive) among Chinese smokers presenting at EDs in Hong Kong.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-blind, multicenter intent-to-treat randomized clinical trial was conducted at the EDs of 4 major acute care hospitals in different districts of Hong Kong. In total, 1571 smokers 18 years or older who presented at 4 major EDs between July 4, 2015, and March 17, 2017, were randomized into an intervention group (n = 787) and a control group (n = 784).InterventionsThe intervention group received brief advice (about 1 minute) and could choose their own quit schedules (immediate or progressive). The control group received a smoking cessation leaflet.Main outcomes and measuresFollow-up visits were conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome measure, by intent to treat, was biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months.ResultsParticipants (N = 1571) included 1381 men (87.9%); the mean (SD) age at baseline was 47.4 (16.4) years. Among participants who self-reported abstinence at 6 months, 50.3% (85 of 169) had biochemical validation by both an exhaled carbon monoxide test and a saliva cotinine test. Compared with the control group, the intervention group had statistically higher biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months: 6.7% (53 of 787) vs 2.8% (22 of 784) (P < .001), with an adjusted relative risk of 3.21 (95% CI, 1.74-5.93; P < .001). The intervention group also had higher self-reported quit rates at 6 months (12.2% [96 of 787] vs 9.3% [73 of 784], P = .04) and 12 months (13.0% [102 of 787] vs 8.5% [67 of 784], P < .01), as well as higher biochemically validated abstinence at 12 months (7.0% [55 of 787] vs 3.7% [29 of 784], P < .001). The additional cost for each intervention group participant was US $0.47, with an estimated gain of 0.0238 quality-adjusted life-year. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (US $19.53) fell within acceptable thresholds.Conclusions and relevanceThis brief, low-cost self-determination theory-based intervention for smokers presenting at EDs effectively increased the biochemically validated quit rate at 6 months. If delivered routinely, such a simple intervention may offer a cost-effective and sustainable approach to help many smokers quit smoking.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02660957.

Project description:BackgroundA progressive approach to quitting smoking has been a popular strategy for motivating smokers who are reluctant to quit. However, whether this strategy can effectively achieve complete cessation or is as successful as quitting immediately remains unresolved. This study aimed to determine whether quitting immediately or progressively was more effective in achieving complete cessation among smokers in Hong Kong who presented at emergency departments.Methods and findingsA posteriori analysis of a single-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial was performed. The original trials was conducted at emergency departments of four major acute hospitals in different districts of Hong Kong. In total, 1571 smokers 18 years or older who presented at 4 major emergency departments between July 4, 2015 and March 17, 2017 were randomized into an intervention group (n = 787) and a control group (n = 784). The intervention group received brief advice (about 1 minute) and could choose their own quit schedules (immediate or progressive, labeled QI and QP, respectively). The control group received a smoking cessation leaflet. Follow-ups were conducted at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcomes, by intention-to-treat, were biochemically validated abstinence between the QI subgroup and control group; between the QP subgroup and control group, and between the QI subgroup and QP subgroup at 6 months. After the propensity sore matching, the biochemically validated abstinence was statistically significantly higher in the QI subgroup than the control group at 6 months (12.1% vs 3.4%, P = 0.003; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.34, 95% CI 1.63-11.52) and higher in the QP subgroup than the control group at 6 months (9.8% vs 3.4%, P = 0.02; aORs 2.95, 95% CI: 1.04-8.39). No statistically significant differences of biochemically validated abstinence at both 6 month (12.1% vs 9.8%, P = 0.49; aORs 1.50, 95% CI: 0.71-3.19) were found in the comparison between QI and QP subgroups.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the strategy of quitting progressively is effective, especially for smokers who lack motivation or find it difficult to quit. If adopted routinely, such an approach can help achieve a greater level of smoking abstinence in the community.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02660957.

Project description:ObjectivesApproximately 10% (40?000) of US quitline enrollees who smoke cigarettes report current use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS); however, little is known about callers' ENDS use. Our aim was to describe why and how quitline callers use ENDS, their beliefs about ENDS and the impact of ENDS use on callers' quit processes and use of FDA-approved cessation medications.DesignQualitative interviews conducted 1-month postregistration. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, double-coded and analysed to identify themes.SettingOklahoma Tobacco Helpline.Participants40 callers aged ?18 who were seeking help to quit smoking were using ENDS at registration and completed ?1 programme calls.ResultsAt 1-month postregistration interview, 80% of callers had smoked cigarettes in the last 7?days, almost two-thirds were using ENDS, and half were using cessation medications. Nearly all believed ENDS helped them quit or cut down on smoking; however, participants were split on whether they would recommend cessation medications, ENDS or both together for quitting. Confusion and misinformation about potential harms of ENDS and cessation medications were reported. Participants reported using ENDS in potentially adaptive ways (eg, using ENDS to cut down and nicotine replacement therapy to quit, and stepping down nicotine in ENDS to wean off ENDS after quitting) and maladaptive ways (eg, frequent automatic ENDS use, using ENDS in situations they did not previously smoke, cutting down on smoking using ENDS without a schedule or plan to quit), which could impact the likelihood of quitting smoking or continuing ENDS use.ConclusionsThese qualitative findings suggest quitline callers who use ENDS experience confusion and misinformation about ENDS and FDA-approved cessation medications. Callers also use ENDS in ways that may not facilitate quitting smoking. Opportunities exist for quitlines to educate ENDS users and help them create a coordinated plan most likely to result in completely quitting combustible tobacco.