Nemeth Julianna M, Cooper Sarah, Wermert Amy, Shoben Abigail, Wewers Mary Ellen
The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Division of Health Behavior & Health Promotion, 1841 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics, 1841 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2017 Nov 8;8:226-231. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.010. eCollection 2017 Dec.
Quitlines are successful tools for smoking cessation, but no known study has examined whether type of phone service (cell phone only (CPO) vs. landline (LL)) impacts quitline utilization, quit attempts, and sustained cessation. This report details an observational study examining the association between phone service and quitline utilization and cessation among Ohio Appalachian adults willing to quit smoking and enrolled in a cessation trial from 2010 to 2014. A secondary analysis was conducted with data obtained from smokers enrolled in the Ohio Tobacco Quitline arm of a group randomized trial (n = 345). The intermediate outcome variables included number of calls, cumulative total call length, average call length, verified shipments of NRT, and 24-hour quit attempt. The primary outcome measure was biologically confirmed 7-day point prevalence abstinence from tobacco at 3, 6, and 12 months post treatment. Participants with LL service, on average, made almost one more call to the quitline and spoke 17.2 min longer over the course of treatment than those with CPO service. Those with LL service were more likely to receive a second 4-week supply of NRT. Phone service status was not associated with average quitline call length, receiving at least one NRT shipment, having made one quit attempt at the end of treatment, or biochemically confirmed abstinence at 3, 6, or 12-month follow-up. Participants with LL services completed more counseling calls, accrued a longer cumulative length, and received more NRT when compared with CPO service participants. However, type of phone service did not deter abstinence outcomes.
戒烟热线是成功的戒烟工具，但尚无已知研究考察电话服务类型（仅使用手机（CPO）与使用固定电话（LL））是否会影响戒烟热线的利用率、戒烟尝试及持续戒烟情况。本报告详细介绍了一项观察性研究，该研究考察了2010年至2014年期间俄亥俄州阿巴拉契亚地区有意愿戒烟并参加戒烟试验的成年人中，电话服务与戒烟热线利用率及戒烟之间的关联。对从一项群组随机试验的俄亥俄州烟草戒烟热线组招募的吸烟者（n = 345）所获数据进行了二次分析。中间结果变量包括通话次数、累计总通话时长、平均通话时长、经核实的尼古丁替代疗法（NRT）发货量以及24小时戒烟尝试。主要结局指标是治疗后3个月、6个月和12个月时经生物学确认的7天时点烟草戒断率。平均而言，使用固定电话服务的参与者比使用仅手机服务的参与者多拨打近一次戒烟热线电话，且在治疗过程中通话时间长17.2分钟。使用固定电话服务的参与者更有可能获得第二份为期4周的NRT供应。电话服务状态与平均戒烟热线通话时长、收到至少一次NRT发货、在治疗结束时进行过一次戒烟尝试或在3个月、6个月或12个月随访时经生化确认的戒断情况无关。与使用仅手机服务的参与者相比，使用固定电话服务的参与者完成了更多咨询电话，累计通话时长更长，且获得了更多NRT。然而，电话服务类型并未影响戒烟结局。
