Noonan D, Silva S, Njuru J, Bishop T, Fish L J, Simmons L A, Choi S H, Pollak K I
Duke University School of Nursing, 307 Trent Drive, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Duke Cancer Institute, 20 Duke Medicine Cir, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Health Educ Res. 2018 Feb 1;33(1):81-88. doi: 10.1093/her/cyx080.
Text-based interventions are effective for smoking cessation, but have not been tested in rural older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of a text-based Scheduled Gradual Reduction (SGR) program to a non-SGR text messaging support condition among rural older adults. Adults over 60 years were randomized to either: (i) the SGR program (n = 20), a text-based program to reduce smoking over 4-weeks plus text-based support messages; or (ii) control (n = 20), receipt of text-based support messages only. Participants completed surveys at baseline and end of program to assess feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and biochemically validated 7-day point prevalence cessation was assessed at end of treatment. Most participants (81%) reported reading all the messages they received. Participants found both interventions useful in quitting smoking (SGR = 57%, Control = 63%) and would recommend it to a friend (SGR = 72%, Control = 79%). Although not statically significant, the SGR group had a higher rate of biochemically validated cessation (SGR = 15%, Control = 5%, Cohen d = 0.67). Among those still smoking, the median percent reduction in cigarettes was 33.3% for both groups. Text-based cessation interventions are feasible, acceptable and can be easily disseminated to rural older adult tobacco users.
基于文本的干预措施对戒烟有效，但尚未在农村老年人中进行测试。本研究的目的是比较基于文本的定时逐步减量（SGR）计划与非SGR短信支持条件在农村老年人中的可行性、可接受性和初步疗效。60岁以上的成年人被随机分为两组：（i）SGR计划组（n = 20），这是一个基于文本的计划，在4周内减少吸烟量并辅以基于文本的支持信息；（ii）对照组（n = 20），仅接收基于文本的支持信息。参与者在基线和计划结束时完成调查，以评估干预措施的可行性和可接受性，并在治疗结束时评估经生化验证的7天点患病率戒烟情况。大多数参与者（81%）报告阅读了他们收到的所有信息。参与者发现两种干预措施对戒烟都有用（SGR组 = 57%，对照组 = 63%），并且会向朋友推荐（SGR组 = 72%，对照组 = 79%）。虽然无统计学显著性差异，但SGR组经生化验证的戒烟率更高（SGR组 = 15%，对照组 = 5%，科恩d值 = 0.67）。在仍在吸烟的人群中，两组的香烟减少中位数百分比均为33.3%。基于文本的戒烟干预措施是可行的、可接受的，并且可以轻松地传播给农村老年烟草使用者。
