Dataset Information

A randomized trial for hazardous drinking and smoking cessation for callers to a quitline.

ABSTRACT: This study evaluated whether tobacco quitline telephone coaches can be trained to counsel hazardous-drinking smokers to improve smoking cessation success and to limit or abstain from alcohol use.Smokers (N = 1,948) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline and reported hazardous drinking (exceeding sex-specific weekly limits [14 drinks for men, 7 drinks for women] or meeting/exceeding daily drinking limits [5 drinks for men, 4 drinks for women] at least once in the past year) were randomized to receive either brief motivational counseling to limit or abstain from alcohol plus an alcohol reduction booklet added to standard care (Alcohol + Tobacco Counseling; ATC), or only smoking cessation counseling plus a smoking cessation booklet added to standard care (Tobacco-Only Counseling; TOC).Acceptable coach adherence was achieved. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that ATC was associated with a significantly higher rate of smoking abstinence at 7-month follow-up (13.5%) compared with TOC (10.3%; p = .03). The respondent analysis (ATC= 26.2%; TOC = 20.4%) paralleled the ITT findings. When controlling for treatment condition, participants who did not report any heavy drinking were significantly more likely to quit smoking than those who reported any heavy drinking (OR = 1.87, 95% CI [1.29, 2.71]; p = .001).A brief alcohol intervention plus standard care via a telephone quitline resulted in significantly higher smoking cessation rates for hazardous-drinking callers. Given that quitline coaches were trained to provide the intervention with acceptable adherence, the potential to extend this intervention for wide-scale implementation and impact is promising.

SUBMITTER: Toll BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5996380 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial for hazardous drinking and smoking cessation for callers to a quitline.

Toll Benjamin A BA Martino Steve S O'Malley Stephanie S SS Fucito Lisa M LM McKee Sherry A SA Kahler Christopher W CW Rojewski Alana M AM Mahoney Martin C MC Wu Ran R Celestino Paula P Seshadri Srinivasa S Koutsky James J Hyland Andrew A Cummings K Michael KM

Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 20141124 3

<h4>Objective</h4>This study evaluated whether tobacco quitline telephone coaches can be trained to counsel hazardous-drinking smokers to improve smoking cessation success and to limit or abstain from alcohol use.<h4>Method</h4>Smokers (N = 1,948) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline and reported hazardous drinking (exceeding sex-specific weekly limits [14 drinks for men, 7 drinks for women] or meeting/exceeding daily drinking limits [5 drinks for men, 4 drinks for women] at least onc ...[more]

PMID: 25419583

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundTelephone quitlines can help employees quit smoking. Quitlines typically use directive coaching, but nondirective, flexible coaching is an alternative. Call-2-Quit used a worksite-sponsored quitline to compare directive and nondirective coaching modes, and evaluated employee race and income as potential moderators.MethodsAn unblinded randomized controlled trial compared directive and nondirective telephone coaching by trained laypersons. Participants were smoking employees and spouses recruited through workplace smoking cessation campaigns in a hospital system and affiliated medical school. Coaches were four non-medical women trained to use both coaching modes. Participants were randomized by family to coaching mode. Participants received up to 7 calls from coaches who used computer assisted telephone interview software to track topics and time. Outcomes were reported smoking abstinence for 7 days at last contact, 6 or 12 months after coaching began. Both worksites implemented new tobacco control policies during the study.ResultsMost participants responded to an insurance incentive introduced at the hospital. Call-2-Quit coached 518 participants: 22 % were African-American; 45 % had incomes below $30,000. Income, race, and intervention did not affect coaching completion rates. Cessation rates were comparable with directive and nondirective coaching (26 % versus 30 % quit, NS). A full factorial logistic regression model identified above median income (odds ratio = 1.8, p = 0.02), especially among African Americans (p = 0.04), and recent quit attempts (OR = 1.6, p = 0.03) as predictors of cessation. Nondirective coaching was associated with high cessation rates among subgroups of smokers reporting income above the median, recent quit attempts, or use of alternative therapies. Waiting up to 4 weeks to start coaching did not affect cessation. Of 41 highly addicted or depressed smokers who had never quit more than 30 days, none quit.ConclusionNondirective coaching improved cessation rates for selected smoking employees, but less expensive directive coaching helped most smokers equally well, regardless of enrollment incentives and delays in receiving coaching. Some subgroups had very low cessation rates with either mode of quitline support.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730260 , Registered March 31, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundSmoking accounts for a large proportion of cancer-related mortality, creating a need for better smoking cessation efforts. We investigated whether gain-framed messages (ie, presenting benefits of quitting) will be a more persuasive method to encourage smoking cessation than standard-care messages (ie, presenting both costs of smoking [loss-framed] and benefits of quitting).MethodsTwenty-eight specialists working at the New York State Smokers' Quitline (a free telephone-based smoking cessation service) were randomly assigned to provide gain-framed or standard-care counseling and print materials. Smokers (n = 2032) who called the New York State Smokers' Quitline between March 10, 2008, and June 13, 2008, were exposed to either gain-framed (n = 810) or standard-care (n = 1222) messages, and all medically eligible callers received nicotine replacement therapy. A subset of 400 call recordings was coded to assess treatment fidelity. All treated smokers were contacted for 2-week and 3-month follow-up interviews. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsSpecialists providing gain-framed counseling used gain-framed statements statistically significantly more frequently than those providing standard-care counseling as assessed with frequency ratings for the two types of gain-framed statements, achieving benefits and avoiding negative consequences (for achieving benefits, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 3.9 vs standard-care mean frequency rating = 1.4; mean difference = -2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.8 to -2.3; P < .001; for avoiding negative consequences, gain-framed mean frequency rating = 1.5 vs standard-card mean frequency rating = 1.0; mean difference = -0.5; 95% CI = -0.6 to -0.3; P < .001). Gain-framed counseling was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of abstinence at the 2-week follow-up (ie, 99 [23.3%] of the 424 in the gain-framed group vs 76 [12.6%] of the 603 in the standard-care group, P < .001) but not at the 3-month follow-up (ie, 148 [28.4%] of the 522 in the gain-framed group vs 202 [26.6%] of the 760 in the standard-care group, P = .48).ConclusionsQuitline specialists can be trained to provide gain-framed counseling with good fidelity. Also, gain-framed messages appear to be somewhat more persuasive than standard-care messages in promoting early success in smoking cessation.

Project description:IntroductionWhile tobacco Quitlines are effective in the promotion of smoking cessation, the majority of callers who wish to quit still fail to do so. The aim of this study was to determine if 12-month tobacco Quitline smoking cessation rates could be improved with re-engagement of callers whose first Quitline treatment failed to establish abstinence.MethodsIn an adaptive trial, 614 adult smokers, who were active duty, retired, and family of military personnel with TRICARE insurance who called a tobacco Quitline, received a previously evaluated and efficacious four-session tobacco cessation intervention with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). At the scheduled follow-up at 3 months, callers who had not yet achieved abstinence were offered the opportunity to re-engage. This resulted in three caller groups: 1) those who were abstinent, 2) those who were still smoking but willing to re-engage with an additional Quitline treatment; and 3) individuals who were still smoking but declined re-engagement. A propensity score-adjusted logistic regression model was generated to compare past-7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months post Quitline consultation.ResultsUsing a propensity score adjusted logistic regression model, comparison of the three groups resulted in higher odds of past-7-day point prevalence abstinence at follow-up at 12 months for those who were abstinent at 3 months compared to those who re-engaged (OR=9.6; 95% CI: 5.2-17.8; Bonferroni adjusted p<0.0001), and relative to those who declined re-engagement (OR=13.4; 95% CI: 6.8-26.3; Bonferroni adjusted p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in smoking abstinence between smokers at 3 months who re-engaged and those who declined re-engagement (OR=1.39; 95% CI: 0.68-2.85).ConclusionsTobacco Quitlines seeking to select a single initiative by which to maximize abstinence at follow-up at 12 months may benefit from diverting additional resources from the re-engagement of callers whose initial quit attempt failed, toward changes which increase callers' probability of success within the first 3 months of treatment.Trial registrationThis study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02201810).

Project description:BACKGROUND: Telephone quitlines offer a wide range of services to callers, including advice and counsel, and information on pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. But, little is known about what specific quitline services are offered to smokers and whether these services are appropriately matched to characteristics of smokers. This study examines how quitline services are matched to callers' level of addiction, educational level, stage-of-change with quitting, and whether they are referred by a doctor or other health professional. METHODS: Between February 2005 and April 2006, 3,585 callers to seven European quitlines responded to our survey. During the course of and immediately after the call, quitline counsellors collected descriptive data on callers' characteristics and the services they used. We then conducted four logistic regression analyses to examine the relationship between quitline services and the four caller characteristics. RESULTS: Forty three percent of all callers received information on pharmacotherapy--most often nicotine patches and nicotine gum--from the counsellor. As we predicted, these callers were the heavy smokers. There was a direct correlation between the length of the conversations between the counsellor and the educational level of the smoker: the lower the education of the smoker, the shorter the call. However, we found no significant association between any other type of service and the educational level of caller. We also found a correlation between the smoker's stage of quitting and the type of advice a counsellor gives. Smokers in the action stage of quitting were more likely to receive advice (in two quitlines) or counselling (in two quitlines) than those in the preparation stage, who were less likely to be referred (in three quitlines). Very few of the total number of calls (10.7%) were from referrals by health professionals. Referred callers were more likely to receive counselling, but this was found only in four of seven quitlines. CONCLUSION: Most of the services quitlines offer to smokers favour heavy smokers and those at a more advanced stage of cessation, but not based on their educational level. Thus, we recommend that European quitlines extend and tailor their services to include less-educated smokers.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial for hazardous drinking and smoking cessation for callers to a quitline.

Publications

A randomized trial for hazardous drinking and smoking cessation for callers to a quitline.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets