Nair Uma S, Reikowsky Ryan C, Wertheim Betsy C, Thomson Cynthia A, Gordon Judith S
1 Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
2 University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Am J Health Promot. 2018 Sep;32(7):1510-1517. doi: 10.1177/0890117117749366. Epub 2018 Jan 11.
To investigate how mode of entry into a quitline influences program utilization and quit outcomes among clients seeking cessation services.
This is a retrospective analysis of clients receiving quitline services from January 2011 to June 2016.
The study was conducted at the Arizona Smokers' Helpline.
Enrolled clients completed a 7-month follow-up (N = 18 650).
The independent variable was referral mode of entry (ie, proactive, passive, and self-referral). Outcome variables included tobacco cessation medication use, number of coaching sessions completed, and 30-day tobacco abstinence at 7 months.
Logistic regression was used to analyze tobacco abstinence after controlling for potential confounders.
Compared to self-referred clients, proactively referred clients were least likely (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-0.97), whereas passively referred clients were most likely (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.00-1.30) to report tobacco abstinence. Proactively referred (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.70-0.88), but not passively referred, clients were 21% less likely to report tobacco cessation medication use than self-referred clients.
Proactive referrals are associated with lower utilization of tobacco cessation medication and less successful quit outcomes; however, provider referrals are critical to reaching tobacco users who may have more significant health risks and barriers to quitting. Examining potential barriers among both providers and provider-referred clients is needed to inform improvements in training providers on brief interventions for tobacco cessation.
探讨进入戒烟热线的方式如何影响寻求戒烟服务的客户对项目的利用情况及戒烟效果。
这是一项对2011年1月至2016年6月期间接受戒烟热线服务的客户进行的回顾性分析。
该研究在亚利桑那州吸烟者帮助热线开展。
登记的客户完成了为期7个月的随访(N = 18650)。
自变量为转诊进入方式(即主动转诊、被动转诊和自我转诊)。结果变量包括使用戒烟药物情况、完成辅导课程的次数以及7个月时30天的烟草戒断情况。
采用逻辑回归分析在控制潜在混杂因素后烟草戒断情况。
与自我转诊的客户相比,主动转诊的客户报告烟草戒断的可能性最小(比值比[OR]:0.88;95%置信区间[CI]:0.81 - 0.97),而被动转诊的客户报告烟草戒断的可能性最大(OR:1.14;95% CI:1.00 - 1.30)。主动转诊的客户(OR:0.79;95% CI:0.70 - 0.88)报告使用戒烟药物的可能性比自我转诊的客户低21%,但被动转诊的客户并非如此。
主动转诊与较低的戒烟药物利用率及较差的戒烟效果相关;然而,提供者转诊对于接触那些可能有更严重健康风险和戒烟障碍的烟草使用者至关重要。需要研究提供者及提供者转诊客户中的潜在障碍,以便为改进提供者关于戒烟简短干预的培训提供信息。