Zhang Lei, Malarcher Ann, Mann Nathan, Campbell Kelsey, Davis Kevin, Anderson Christopher, Alexander Robert, Rodes Robert
Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA;
Center for Health Policy Science and Tobacco Research, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC;
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Aug;18(8):1780-5. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw100. Epub 2016 Apr 12.
Previous research has shown that the first federally funded national tobacco education campaign (Tips) increased calls to the national quitline portal (1-800-QUIT-NOW). Quitlines in 13 states have alternate state-specific telephone numbers. This study examined quitline calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW in states with and without alternate numbers during the Tips campaign.
We used data on calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW from all US states and the District of Columbia from 2 weeks before to 2 weeks after the 2012 Tips campaign. Similar data were obtained for California's alternate number, 1-800-NO-BUTTS. Multivariate linear models examined whether an interaction existed between Tips exposure, as measured by gross rating points, and presence of an alternate quitline number as well as the effect of Tips on calls to California's 1-800-NO-BUTTS.
Having an alternate quitline number did not affect the rate of increase in calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW, but it was associated with lower absolute numbers of calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW. On average, states with alternate numbers had 98 fewer calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW per week in a given area code than those without an alternate number (P < .001). In California, Tips gross rating points were positively correlated with calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW (b = 38.5, P < .001) and to 1-800-NO-BUTTS (b = 14.1, P < .05).
The Tips campaign had the same effect in increasing calls to 1-800-QUIT-NOW in states with and without alternate quitline numbers and had a modest spillover effect on calls to California's alternate number. States may consider the advantages and disadvantages of having alternate quitline numbers given continued national promotions of 1-800-QUIT-NOW.
This is the first study that assesses whether the impact of a national tobacco education campaign promoting the national quitline portal number was influenced by the presence of state-specific quitline numbers and whether there was any spillover effect on calls to states' alternate quitline numbers. This study provides important information for states to consider the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining state-specific quitline numbers.
先前的研究表明，首个由联邦政府资助的全国性烟草教育活动（Tips）增加了拨打全国戒烟热线门户（1-800-QUIT-NOW）的电话数量。13个州的戒烟热线有各自州特定的替代电话号码。本研究调查了在Tips活动期间，拨打1-800-QUIT-NOW的戒烟热线电话情况，对比了有和没有替代号码的州。
我们使用了来自美国所有州和哥伦比亚特区在2012年Tips活动前2周及活动后2周拨打1-800-QUIT-NOW的电话数据。加利福尼亚州的替代号码1-800-NO-BUTTS也获取了类似数据。多变量线性模型检验了以总收视率点衡量的Tips曝光度与替代戒烟热线号码的存在之间是否存在交互作用，以及Tips对拨打加利福尼亚州1-800-NO-BUTTS的电话数量的影响。
拥有替代戒烟热线号码并未影响拨打1-800-QUIT-NOW的电话增加率，但与拨打1-800-QUIT-NOW的绝对电话数量较低有关。在给定的区号中，平均而言，有替代号码的州每周拨打1-800-QUIT-NOW的电话比没有替代号码的州少98个（P <.001）。在加利福尼亚州，Tips总收视率点与拨打1-800-QUIT-NOW的电话数量呈正相关（b = 38.5，P <.001），与拨打1-800-NO-BUTTS的电话数量也呈正相关（b = 14.1，P <.05）。
Tips活动在有和没有替代戒烟热线号码的州增加拨打1-800-QUIT-NOW的电话方面具有相同效果，并且对拨打加利福尼亚州替代号码的电话有适度的溢出效应。鉴于1-800-QUIT-NOW在全国范围内持续推广，各州可能需要考虑拥有替代戒烟热线号码的利弊。
这是第一项评估推广全国戒烟热线门户号码的全国性烟草教育活动的影响是否受到州特定戒烟热线号码的存在影响，以及对拨打各州替代戒烟热线号码的电话是否有任何溢出效应的研究。本研究为各州考虑维持州特定戒烟热线号码的利弊提供了重要信息。
