Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
LGBTQ Utilization of a Statewide Tobacco Quitline: Engagement and Quitting Behavior, 2010-2022.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка 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.
Anderson Christopher M, Tedeschi Gary J, Cummins Sharon E, Lienemann Brianna A, Zhuang Yue-Lin, Gordon Bob, Hernández Sandra, Zhu Shu-Hong
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) individuals use tobacco at disproportionately high rates but are as likely as straight tobacco users to want to quit and to use quitlines. Little is known about the demographics and geographic distribution of LGBTQ quitline participants, their engagement with services, or their long-term outcomes.
AIMS AND METHODS: Californians (N = 333 429) who enrolled in a statewide quitline 2010-2022 were asked about their sexual and gender minority (SGM) status and other baseline characteristics. All were offered telephone counseling. A subset (n = 19 431) was followed up at seven months. Data were analyzed in 2023 by SGM status (LGBTQ vs. straight) and county type (rural vs. urban).
RESULTS: Overall, 7.0% of participants were LGBTQ, including 7.4% and 5.4% of urban and rural participants, respectively. LGBTQ participants were younger than straight participants but had similar cigarette consumption. Fewer LGBTQ participants reported a physical health condition (42.1% vs. 48.4%) but more reported a behavioral health condition (71.1% vs. 54.5%; both p's < .001). Among both LGBTQ and straight participants, nearly 9 in 10 chose counseling and both groups completed nearly three sessions on average. The groups had equivalent 30-day abstinence rates (24.5% vs. 23.2%; p = .263). Similar patterns were seen in urban and rural subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQ tobacco users engaged with and appeared to benefit from a statewide quitline even though it was not LGBTQ community-based. A quitline with staff trained in LGBTQ cultural competence can help address the high prevalence of tobacco use in the LGBTQ community and reach members wherever they live.
IMPLICATIONS: This study describes how participants of a statewide tobacco quitline broke down by sexual orientation and gender. It compares participants both by SGM status and by type of county to provide a more complete picture of quitline participation both in urban areas where LGBTQ community-based cessation programs may exist and in rural areas where they generally do not. To our knowledge, it is the first study to compare LGBTQ and straight participants on their use of quitline services and quitting aids, satisfaction with services received, and rates of attempting quitting and achieving prolonged abstinence from smoking.
AIMS AND METHODS: Californians (N = 333 429) who enrolled in a statewide quitline 2010-2022 were asked about their sexual and gender minority (SGM) status and other baseline characteristics. All were offered telephone counseling. A subset (n = 19 431) was followed up at seven months. Data were analyzed in 2023 by SGM status (LGBTQ vs. straight) and county type (rural vs. urban).
RESULTS: Overall, 7.0% of participants were LGBTQ, including 7.4% and 5.4% of urban and rural participants, respectively. LGBTQ participants were younger than straight participants but had similar cigarette consumption. Fewer LGBTQ participants reported a physical health condition (42.1% vs. 48.4%) but more reported a behavioral health condition (71.1% vs. 54.5%; both p's < .001). Among both LGBTQ and straight participants, nearly 9 in 10 chose counseling and both groups completed nearly three sessions on average. The groups had equivalent 30-day abstinence rates (24.5% vs. 23.2%; p = .263). Similar patterns were seen in urban and rural subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQ tobacco users engaged with and appeared to benefit from a statewide quitline even though it was not LGBTQ community-based. A quitline with staff trained in LGBTQ cultural competence can help address the high prevalence of tobacco use in the LGBTQ community and reach members wherever they live.
IMPLICATIONS: This study describes how participants of a statewide tobacco quitline broke down by sexual orientation and gender. It compares participants both by SGM status and by type of county to provide a more complete picture of quitline participation both in urban areas where LGBTQ community-based cessation programs may exist and in rural areas where they generally do not. To our knowledge, it is the first study to compare LGBTQ and straight participants on their use of quitline services and quitting aids, satisfaction with services received, and rates of attempting quitting and achieving prolonged abstinence from smoking.