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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sumner, Walton, Walker, Mark S., Highstein, Gabrielle R., Fischer, Irene, Yan, Yan, McQueen, Amy, Fisher, Edwin B.
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