McBride C M, Halabi S, Bepler G, Lyna P, McIntyre L, Lipkus I, Albright J, O'Briant K
Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
J Health Commun. 2000 Jul-Sep;5(3):229-41. doi: 10.1080/10810730050131406.
This two-by-two factorially designed study evaluate approaches for communicating feedback of lung cancer susceptibility to smokers as a method for motivating smoking cessation. The study factors were: method of communicating feedback (by mail with telephone follow-up or in-person) and carbon monoxide feedback (yes or no). One-hundred-forty-four smokers were stratified on race and randomized to one of four conditions. Participants were surveyed at baseline and 2-month follow-up. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the absence of the glutathione S transferase mu (GSTM1) gene was the susceptibility marker. Regardless of counseling method or carbon monoxide (CO) feedback, the majority (90%) of smokers accurately recalled the test result and 66% accurately interpreted the meaning of the test result. Smokers who received their result in person were significantly less likely to have read the result booklet than those in the telephone counseling group (OR = .28, 95%; CI .12-.62; p < .05). Neither counseling method nor CO feedback increased smokers' perceived risks for lung cancer. However, at the counseling session those who received in-person counseling were significantly less frightened by the test result than those who received telephone counseling (OR = .42, 95%; CI .20-86; p < .05) and at the 2-month follow-up those who received a CO test were significantly less frightened by their susceptibility result (OR = .40, 95%; CI .17-.92; p < .05) than those who did not have a CO test. Evaluation of further refinements in communicating the meaning of susceptibility results to motivate smoking cessation is warranted.
这项二乘二析因设计研究评估了向吸烟者传达肺癌易感性反馈作为激励戒烟方法的途径。研究因素包括：反馈传达方法（通过邮件并电话随访或亲自传达）和一氧化碳反馈（有或无）。144名吸烟者按种族分层并随机分配到四种情况之一。在基线和2个月随访时对参与者进行调查。通过聚合酶链反应（PCR）检测谷胱甘肽S转移酶μ（GSTM1）基因缺失作为易感性标志物。无论咨询方法或一氧化碳（CO）反馈如何，大多数（90%）吸烟者准确回忆了检测结果，66%准确解读了检测结果的含义。与电话咨询组相比，亲自收到检测结果的吸烟者阅读结果手册的可能性显著更低（比值比=0.28，95%；可信区间0.12 - 0.62；p<0.05）。咨询方法和CO反馈均未增加吸烟者对肺癌的感知风险。然而，在咨询环节，亲自接受咨询的人对检测结果的恐惧程度明显低于接受电话咨询的人（比值比=0.42，95%；可信区间0.20 - 0.86；p<0.05），在2个月随访时，接受CO检测的人对其易感性结果的恐惧程度明显低于未接受CO检测的人（比值比=0.40，95%；可信区间0.17 - 0.92；p<0.05）。有必要评估在传达易感性结果含义以激励戒烟方面的进一步改进措施。
