Klesges Robert C, Krukowski Rebecca A, Klosky James L, Liu Wei, Srivastava Deo Kumar, Boyett James M, Lanctot Jennifer Q, Hudson Melissa M, Folsom Charla, Lando Harry, Robison Leslie L
Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA; The Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
The Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Prev Med. 2015 Apr;73:22-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.12.019. Epub 2015 Jan 5.
The purpose of the study (conducted 2010-2013) was to determine the efficacy of two common types of tobacco quitlines in adult cancer survivors who regularly smoked cigarettes.
Adult onset cancer survivors in Memphis, Tennessee (n=427, 67% female, 60% Caucasian) were randomized either to a Proactive (i.e., counselor-initiated calls) or Reactive (i.e., participant-initiated calls) quitline. Both conditions also received nicotine replacement therapy. The primary outcome was biochemically-verified (i.e., salivary cotinine) smoking cessation.
While 12-month self-reported abstinence was consistent with other published studies of smoking cessation (22% and 26% point prevalence abstinence for Proactive and Reactive conditions, respectively), 48% of participants who were tested for cotinine failed biochemical verification, indicating a considerable falsification of self-reported cessation. Adjusted cessation rates were less than 5% in both intervention conditions.
Our results are consistent with other studies indicating that traditional smoking cessation interventions are ineffective among cancer survivors. Moreover, self-reports of cessation were unreliable in cancer survivors participating in a quitline intervention, indicating that future studies should include biochemical verification. Given the importance of smoking cessation among cancer survivors and low cessation rates in the current study, it may be necessary to design alternative interventions for this population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00827866.
本研究(于2010 - 2013年开展)旨在确定两种常见类型的戒烟热线对经常吸烟的成年癌症幸存者的疗效。
田纳西州孟菲斯市的成年起病癌症幸存者(n = 427,67%为女性,60%为白种人)被随机分配至主动式(即由咨询师发起呼叫)或被动式(即由参与者发起呼叫)戒烟热线。两种情况均接受尼古丁替代疗法。主要结局是经生化验证(即唾液可替宁)的戒烟情况。
虽然12个月的自我报告戒烟率与其他已发表的戒烟研究一致(主动式和被动式情况的点患病率戒烟率分别为22%和26%),但接受可替宁检测的参与者中有48%未通过生化验证,这表明自我报告的戒烟情况存在相当程度的虚假报告。两种干预情况下的调整后戒烟率均低于5%。
我们的结果与其他研究一致,表明传统的戒烟干预措施在癌症幸存者中无效。此外,参与戒烟热线干预的癌症幸存者的戒烟自我报告不可靠,这表明未来的研究应包括生化验证。鉴于癌症幸存者戒烟的重要性以及本研究中的低戒烟率,可能有必要为该人群设计替代干预措施。ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT00827866。