Addictive behaviors · 2015
Quit_line treatment protocols for users of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine containing products.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Linde Brittany D, Ebbert Jon O, Talcott G Wayne, Klesges Robert C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Use of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine containing products (TNCPs) is increasing in the US. Telephone tobacco quit lines (QLs) are one of the most widely disseminated tools for providing cessation services to cigarette smokers, but the range of QL treatment services offered to non-cigarette TNCP users needs to be determined.
METHODS: We surveyed QLs across 50 US states, Washington D.C., and Guam for the number of treatment protocols offered, products they were intended to treat, and how telephone counselors triaged patients reporting the use of non-cigarette TNCPs.
RESULTS: Thirteen organizations provided US QL interventions of which eleven agreed to be interviewed regarding their treatment services (84.6%). Seven of the eleven QL providers (63.6%) used a single intervention protocol adapted to the type of non-cigarette TNCP used. Two of the eleven QLs (18.2%) referred hookah users to another provider and one QL (9.1%) referred electronic cigarette users to third party resources for cessation support; otherwise a single intervention protocol was used for all other TNCP users. Only one QL (9.1%) had a specialized protocol for smokeless tobacco users in addition to a standard protocol for all other callers.
CONCLUSIONS: QL providers do not have access to tailored protocols for non-cigarette TNCP users, and it remains uncertain whether a common tobacco protocol will be efficacious for these users. Future research should both validate potential common protocols for non-cigarette TNCP users and address the need for and the development of specialized QL interventions for TNCP users to help them quit.
METHODS: We surveyed QLs across 50 US states, Washington D.C., and Guam for the number of treatment protocols offered, products they were intended to treat, and how telephone counselors triaged patients reporting the use of non-cigarette TNCPs.
RESULTS: Thirteen organizations provided US QL interventions of which eleven agreed to be interviewed regarding their treatment services (84.6%). Seven of the eleven QL providers (63.6%) used a single intervention protocol adapted to the type of non-cigarette TNCP used. Two of the eleven QLs (18.2%) referred hookah users to another provider and one QL (9.1%) referred electronic cigarette users to third party resources for cessation support; otherwise a single intervention protocol was used for all other TNCP users. Only one QL (9.1%) had a specialized protocol for smokeless tobacco users in addition to a standard protocol for all other callers.
CONCLUSIONS: QL providers do not have access to tailored protocols for non-cigarette TNCP users, and it remains uncertain whether a common tobacco protocol will be efficacious for these users. Future research should both validate potential common protocols for non-cigarette TNCP users and address the need for and the development of specialized QL interventions for TNCP users to help them quit.