Cargando…
A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline
BACKGROUND: Telephone quitlines can help employees quit smoking. Quitlines typically use directive coaching, but nondirective, flexible coaching is an alternative. Call-2-Quit used a worksite-sponsored quitline to compare directive and nondirective coaching modes, and evaluated employee race and inc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940833/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27400966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3202-y |
_version_ | 1782442203005583360 |
---|---|
author | Sumner, Walton Walker, Mark S. Highstein, Gabrielle R. Fischer, Irene Yan, Yan McQueen, Amy Fisher, Edwin B. |
author_facet | Sumner, Walton Walker, Mark S. Highstein, Gabrielle R. Fischer, Irene Yan, Yan McQueen, Amy Fisher, Edwin B. |
author_sort | Sumner, Walton |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Telephone quitlines can help employees quit smoking. Quitlines typically use directive coaching, but nondirective, flexible coaching is an alternative. Call-2-Quit used a worksite-sponsored quitline to compare directive and nondirective coaching modes, and evaluated employee race and income as potential moderators. METHODS: An unblinded randomized controlled trial compared directive and nondirective telephone coaching by trained laypersons. Participants were smoking employees and spouses recruited through workplace smoking cessation campaigns in a hospital system and affiliated medical school. Coaches were four non-medical women trained to use both coaching modes. Participants were randomized by family to coaching mode. Participants received up to 7 calls from coaches who used computer assisted telephone interview software to track topics and time. Outcomes were reported smoking abstinence for 7 days at last contact, 6 or 12 months after coaching began. Both worksites implemented new tobacco control policies during the study. RESULTS: Most participants responded to an insurance incentive introduced at the hospital. Call-2-Quit coached 518 participants: 22 % were African-American; 45 % had incomes below $30,000. Income, race, and intervention did not affect coaching completion rates. Cessation rates were comparable with directive and nondirective coaching (26 % versus 30 % quit, NS). A full factorial logistic regression model identified above median income (odds ratio = 1.8, p = 0.02), especially among African Americans (p = 0.04), and recent quit attempts (OR = 1.6, p = 0.03) as predictors of cessation. Nondirective coaching was associated with high cessation rates among subgroups of smokers reporting income above the median, recent quit attempts, or use of alternative therapies. Waiting up to 4 weeks to start coaching did not affect cessation. Of 41 highly addicted or depressed smokers who had never quit more than 30 days, none quit. CONCLUSION: Nondirective coaching improved cessation rates for selected smoking employees, but less expensive directive coaching helped most smokers equally well, regardless of enrollment incentives and delays in receiving coaching. Some subgroups had very low cessation rates with either mode of quitline support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730260, Registered March 31, 2016 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4940833 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49408332016-07-13 A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline Sumner, Walton Walker, Mark S. Highstein, Gabrielle R. Fischer, Irene Yan, Yan McQueen, Amy Fisher, Edwin B. BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Telephone quitlines can help employees quit smoking. Quitlines typically use directive coaching, but nondirective, flexible coaching is an alternative. Call-2-Quit used a worksite-sponsored quitline to compare directive and nondirective coaching modes, and evaluated employee race and income as potential moderators. METHODS: An unblinded randomized controlled trial compared directive and nondirective telephone coaching by trained laypersons. Participants were smoking employees and spouses recruited through workplace smoking cessation campaigns in a hospital system and affiliated medical school. Coaches were four non-medical women trained to use both coaching modes. Participants were randomized by family to coaching mode. Participants received up to 7 calls from coaches who used computer assisted telephone interview software to track topics and time. Outcomes were reported smoking abstinence for 7 days at last contact, 6 or 12 months after coaching began. Both worksites implemented new tobacco control policies during the study. RESULTS: Most participants responded to an insurance incentive introduced at the hospital. Call-2-Quit coached 518 participants: 22 % were African-American; 45 % had incomes below $30,000. Income, race, and intervention did not affect coaching completion rates. Cessation rates were comparable with directive and nondirective coaching (26 % versus 30 % quit, NS). A full factorial logistic regression model identified above median income (odds ratio = 1.8, p = 0.02), especially among African Americans (p = 0.04), and recent quit attempts (OR = 1.6, p = 0.03) as predictors of cessation. Nondirective coaching was associated with high cessation rates among subgroups of smokers reporting income above the median, recent quit attempts, or use of alternative therapies. Waiting up to 4 weeks to start coaching did not affect cessation. Of 41 highly addicted or depressed smokers who had never quit more than 30 days, none quit. CONCLUSION: Nondirective coaching improved cessation rates for selected smoking employees, but less expensive directive coaching helped most smokers equally well, regardless of enrollment incentives and delays in receiving coaching. Some subgroups had very low cessation rates with either mode of quitline support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730260, Registered March 31, 2016 BioMed Central 2016-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4940833/ /pubmed/27400966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3202-y Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Sumner, Walton Walker, Mark S. Highstein, Gabrielle R. Fischer, Irene Yan, Yan McQueen, Amy Fisher, Edwin B. A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline |
title | A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline |
title_full | A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline |
title_fullStr | A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline |
title_short | A randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline |
title_sort | randomized controlled trial of directive and nondirective smoking cessation coaching through an employee quitline |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940833/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27400966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3202-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sumnerwalton arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT walkermarks arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT highsteingabrieller arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT fischerirene arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT yanyan arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT mcqueenamy arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT fisheredwinb arandomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT sumnerwalton randomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT walkermarks randomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT highsteingabrieller randomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT fischerirene randomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT yanyan randomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT mcqueenamy randomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline AT fisheredwinb randomizedcontrolledtrialofdirectiveandnondirectivesmokingcessationcoachingthroughanemployeequitline |