Pilehvari Asal, Krukowski Rebecca Anne, Wiseman Kara Philips, Little Melissa Ashley
Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
UVA Comprehensive Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2024 Apr 6;42:102716. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102716. eCollection 2024 Jun.
While cigarette smoking rates have declined, rural and Appalachian populations in the United States have not seen similar decreases. Quitline programs are promising strategies in reducing disparities in these areas, but research on their usage is limited.
We employed Small Area Estimation on the Virginia Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2011-2019) to estimate county-level smoking prevalence and utilized The Quit Now Virginia Quitline data (2011-2019) to estimate Quitline users. We analyzed differences in Quitline utilization by rurality and Appalachian status using statistical t-tests. Stepwise regression assessed the absolute estimate of county features, including poverty rate, tobacco retailer density, physician availability, coal mining industry, and tobacco agriculture, on Quitline usage.
While the average smoking rate overall was 15.3 %, only 7.4 % of smokers accessed Quitline services from 2011 to 2019. Appalachian regions exhibited higher smoking rates (20.9 %) and lower quitline usage (4.8 %) compared to non-Appalachian areas (14 % smoking prevalence, 8 % quitline usage). Rural regions had higher smoking prevalence (19.0 %) than urban areas (12.9 %), but no significant difference in Quitline utilization (7.6 % vs. 7.2 %, p = 0.7). Stepwise regression revealed counties with more tobacco agriculture had 3.2 % (p = 0.04) lower Quitline utilization. Also, more physicians availability in the county was associated with 3.9 % higher Quitline usage (p = 0.03) and Appalachian counties exhibited a 3.6 % lower Quitline usage rate compared to non-Appalachian counties.
A significant gap exists between cigarette smoking prevalence and Quitline utilization, particularly in underserved rural and Appalachian areas, despite no clear barriers to accessing this remote cessation resource.
The study underscores persistent disparities in smoking rates, with rural and Appalachian regions in the United States facing higher smoking prevalence and limited utilization of Quitline services. Despite no clear barriers to access, the gap between smoking prevalence and Quitline usage remains significant, particularly in underserved areas. Tailoring interventions to address regional disparities and factors like tobacco agriculture and physician availability is essential to reduce smoking rates and improve Quitline utilization in these communities.
虽然吸烟率有所下降,但美国农村和阿巴拉契亚地区的吸烟率并未出现类似下降。戒烟热线项目是减少这些地区差异的有前景的策略,但关于其使用情况的研究有限。
我们对弗吉尼亚行为风险因素监测系统(2011 - 2019年)采用小区域估计法来估计县级吸烟率,并利用弗吉尼亚戒烟热线“立即戒烟”数据(2011 - 2019年)来估计戒烟热线使用者。我们使用统计t检验分析了农村地区和阿巴拉契亚地区在戒烟热线使用方面的差异。逐步回归评估了包括贫困率、烟草零售商密度、医生可及性、煤炭采矿业和烟草农业在内的县级特征对戒烟热线使用情况的绝对估计。
虽然总体平均吸烟率为15.3%,但在2011年至2019年期间,只有7.4%的吸烟者使用了戒烟热线服务。与非阿巴拉契亚地区(吸烟率14%,戒烟热线使用率8%)相比,阿巴拉契亚地区吸烟率更高(20.9%),戒烟热线使用率更低(4.8%)。农村地区吸烟率(19.0%)高于城市地区(12.9%),但在戒烟热线使用方面没有显著差异(7.6%对7.2%,p = 0.7)。逐步回归显示,烟草农业较多的县戒烟热线使用率低3.2%(p = 0.04)。此外,县内医生可及性更高与戒烟热线使用率高3.9%相关(p = 0.03),与非阿巴拉契亚县相比,阿巴拉契亚县的戒烟热线使用率低3.6%。
吸烟率与戒烟热线使用率之间存在显著差距,特别是在服务不足的农村和阿巴拉契亚地区,尽管获取这种远程戒烟资源没有明显障碍。
该研究强调了吸烟率方面持续存在的差异,美国农村和阿巴拉契亚地区面临更高的吸烟率以及戒烟热线服务利用率有限的问题。尽管获取方面没有明显障碍,但吸烟率与戒烟热线使用率之间的差距仍然很大,特别是在服务不足的地区。针对地区差异以及烟草农业和医生可及性等因素量身定制干预措施,对于降低这些社区的吸烟率和提高戒烟热线利用率至关重要。