Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
Reengagement for Long-Term Smoking-Cessation In Military Personnel, Retirees, Family Members (TRICARE): A Randomized Trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Klesges Robert C, Talcott G Wayne, Little Melissa A, Mallawaarachchi Indika V, Wang X-Q, Aycock Chase A, Patience Marc A, Halbert Jennifer P, Wiseman Kara P, Ebbert Jon O
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine what type of treatment reengagement after smoking relapse would increase long-term cessation.
AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were military personnel, retirees, and family members (TRICARE beneficiaries) recruited across the United States from August 2015 through June 2020. At baseline, consented participants (n = 614) received a validated, four-session, telephonic tobacco-cessation intervention with free nicotine replacement therapy. At the 3-month follow-up, 264 participants who failed to quit or relapsed were offered the opportunity to reengage in cessation. Of these, 134 were randomized into three reengagement conditions: (1) repeat initial intervention ("recycle"), (2) Smoking reduction with eventual cessation goal ("rate reduction"), or (3) Choose #1 or #2 ("choice"). Prolonged abstinence and 7-day point prevalence abstinence were measured at 12 months.
RESULTS: Despite being in a clinical trial advertised as having the opportunity for reengagement, only 51% (134 of the 264) of participants who still smoked at 3-month follow-up were willing to reengage. Overall, participants randomized to recycle had higher prolonged cessation rates at 12 months than rate reduction conditions (OR = 16.43, 95% CI: 2.52 to 107.09, Bonferroni adjusted p = .011). When participants who randomly received recycle or rate reduction were pooled, respectively, with participants who chose recycle or rate reduction in the Choice group, recycle had higher prolonged cessation rates at 12 months than rate reduction (OR = 6.50, 95% CI: 1.49 to 28.42, p = .013).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest service members and their family members who fail to quit smoking but are willing to reengage in a cessation program are more likely to benefit from repeating the same treatment.
IMPLICATIONS: Finding methods that are both successful and acceptable to reengage people who smoke who want to quit can have a significant impact on improving the health of the public by reducing the portion of the population who smoke. This study suggests that repeating established cessation programs will result in more people ready to quit successfully achieving their goal.
AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were military personnel, retirees, and family members (TRICARE beneficiaries) recruited across the United States from August 2015 through June 2020. At baseline, consented participants (n = 614) received a validated, four-session, telephonic tobacco-cessation intervention with free nicotine replacement therapy. At the 3-month follow-up, 264 participants who failed to quit or relapsed were offered the opportunity to reengage in cessation. Of these, 134 were randomized into three reengagement conditions: (1) repeat initial intervention ("recycle"), (2) Smoking reduction with eventual cessation goal ("rate reduction"), or (3) Choose #1 or #2 ("choice"). Prolonged abstinence and 7-day point prevalence abstinence were measured at 12 months.
RESULTS: Despite being in a clinical trial advertised as having the opportunity for reengagement, only 51% (134 of the 264) of participants who still smoked at 3-month follow-up were willing to reengage. Overall, participants randomized to recycle had higher prolonged cessation rates at 12 months than rate reduction conditions (OR = 16.43, 95% CI: 2.52 to 107.09, Bonferroni adjusted p = .011). When participants who randomly received recycle or rate reduction were pooled, respectively, with participants who chose recycle or rate reduction in the Choice group, recycle had higher prolonged cessation rates at 12 months than rate reduction (OR = 6.50, 95% CI: 1.49 to 28.42, p = .013).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest service members and their family members who fail to quit smoking but are willing to reengage in a cessation program are more likely to benefit from repeating the same treatment.
IMPLICATIONS: Finding methods that are both successful and acceptable to reengage people who smoke who want to quit can have a significant impact on improving the health of the public by reducing the portion of the population who smoke. This study suggests that repeating established cessation programs will result in more people ready to quit successfully achieving their goal.