Prochaska J O, Velicer W F, Fava J L, Ruggiero L, Laforge R G, Rossi J S, Johnson S S, Lee P A
Cancer Prevention Research Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881-0808, USA.
Prev Med. 2001 Jan;32(1):23-32. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0767.
Previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of an interactive expert system intervention for smoking cessation for a general population. The intervention provides individualized feedback that guides participants through the stages of change for cessation. Enhancing the expert system by adding proactive telephone counseling or a stimulus control computer designed to produce nicotine fading could produce preventive programs with greater population impacts.
Four interventions were compared: (a) the interactive expert system intervention; (b) the expert system intervention plus counselor calls; (c) the expert system intervention plus the stimulus control computer; and (d) an assessment only condition. A 4 (intervention) x 4 (occasions) (0,6,12, and 18 months) design was used. Smokers were contacted at home via telephone or mail. The initial subject pool was the 24,178 members of a managed care company. Screening was completed for 19,236 members (79.6%), of whom 4,653 were smokers; 85.3% of the smokers were enrolled.
Thirty-eight percent were in the precontemplation stage, 45% in the contemplation stage, and only 17% in the preparation stage. At 18 months, the expert system resulted in 23.2% point prevalence abstinence, which was 33% greater than that of assessment only. The counselor enhancement produced increased cessation at 12 months but not at 18 months. The stimulus control computer produced no improvement, resulting in 20% worse cessation rates than the assessment only condition.
The enhanced conditions failed to outperform the expert system alone. The study also demonstrated the ability of the interactive expert system to produce significantly greater cessation in a population of smokers than assessment alone.
先前的研究已证明交互式专家系统干预对普通人群戒烟的有效性。该干预提供个性化反馈,指导参与者经历戒烟的各个阶段。通过添加主动电话咨询或旨在产生尼古丁消退效果的刺激控制计算机来增强专家系统,可能会产生对人群影响更大的预防计划。
比较了四种干预措施:(a)交互式专家系统干预;(b)专家系统干预加咨询师电话;(c)专家系统干预加刺激控制计算机;(d)仅评估条件。采用4(干预)×4(时间点)(0、6、12和18个月)设计。通过电话或邮件在家中联系吸烟者。最初的受试者群体是一家管理式医疗公司的24178名成员。对19236名成员(79.6%)完成了筛查,其中4653名是吸烟者;85.3%的吸烟者被纳入研究。
38%处于未考虑阶段,45%处于考虑阶段,只有17%处于准备阶段。在18个月时,专家系统导致点患病率戒烟率为23.2%,比仅评估条件高33%。咨询师增强措施在12个月时戒烟率增加,但在18个月时没有。刺激控制计算机没有带来改善,导致戒烟率比仅评估条件差20%。
增强后的条件并未优于单独的专家系统。该研究还表明,交互式专家系统在吸烟者群体中产生的戒烟效果明显大于单独评估。