Tobacco control · 2007
The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of telephone counselling and the nicotine patch in a state tobacco quitline.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Hollis Jack F, McAfee Timothy A, Fellows Jeffrey L, Zbikowski Susan M, Stark Michael, Riedlinger Karen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: State and national tobacco quitlines have expanded rapidly and offer a range of services. We examined the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of offering callers single session versus multisession counselling, with or without free nicotine patches.
METHODS: This 3x2 randomised trial included 4614 Oregon tobacco quitline callers and compared brief (one 15-minute call), moderate (one 30-minute call and a follow-up call) and intensive (five proactive calls) intervention protocols, with or without offers of free nicotine patches (nicotine replacement therapy, NRT). Blinded staff assessed tobacco use by phone at 12 months.
RESULTS: Abstinence odds ratios were significant for moderate (OR = 1.22, CI = 1.01 to 1.48) and intensive (OR = 1.29, CI = 1.07 to 1.56) intervention, and for NRT (OR = 1.58, CI = 1.35 to 1.85). Intent to treat quit rates were as follows: brief no NRT (12%); brief NRT (17%); moderate no NRT (14%); moderate NRT (20%); intensive no NRT (14%); and intensive NRT (21%). Relative to brief no NRT, the added costs for each additional quit was $2467 for brief NRT, $1912 for moderate no NRT, $2109 for moderate NRT, $2641 for intensive no NRT, and $2112 for intensive NRT.
CONCLUSION: Offering free NRT and multisession telephone support within a state tobacco quitline led to higher quit rates, and similar costs per incremental quit, than less intensive protocols.
METHODS: This 3x2 randomised trial included 4614 Oregon tobacco quitline callers and compared brief (one 15-minute call), moderate (one 30-minute call and a follow-up call) and intensive (five proactive calls) intervention protocols, with or without offers of free nicotine patches (nicotine replacement therapy, NRT). Blinded staff assessed tobacco use by phone at 12 months.
RESULTS: Abstinence odds ratios were significant for moderate (OR = 1.22, CI = 1.01 to 1.48) and intensive (OR = 1.29, CI = 1.07 to 1.56) intervention, and for NRT (OR = 1.58, CI = 1.35 to 1.85). Intent to treat quit rates were as follows: brief no NRT (12%); brief NRT (17%); moderate no NRT (14%); moderate NRT (20%); intensive no NRT (14%); and intensive NRT (21%). Relative to brief no NRT, the added costs for each additional quit was $2467 for brief NRT, $1912 for moderate no NRT, $2109 for moderate NRT, $2641 for intensive no NRT, and $2112 for intensive NRT.
CONCLUSION: Offering free NRT and multisession telephone support within a state tobacco quitline led to higher quit rates, and similar costs per incremental quit, than less intensive protocols.