OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate, in a primary care setting, a computerised system for generating tailored letters about smoking cessation. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Six general practices in Aberdeen, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 2553 smokers aged 17 to 65. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a questionnaire asking about their smoking. Participants subsequently received either a computer tailored or a non-tailored, standard letter on smoking cessation, or no letter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of validated abstinence at six months; change in intention to stop smoking in the next six months. RESULTS: The validated cessation rate at six months was 3.5% (30/857) (95% confidence interval 2.3% to 4.7%) for the tailored letter group, 4.4% (37/846) (3.0% to 5.8%) for the non-tailored letter group, and 2.6% (22/850) (1.5% to 3.7%) for the control (no letter) group. After adjustment for significant covariates, the cessation rate was 66% greater (-4% to 186%; P=0.07) in the non-tailored letter group than that in the no letter group. Among participants who smoked <20 cigarettes per day, the cessation rate in the non-tailored letter group was 87% greater (0% to 246%; P=0.05) than that in the no letter group. Among heavy smokers who did not quit, a 76% higher rate of positive shift in "stage of change" (intention to quit within a particular period of time) was seen compared with those who received no letter (11% to 180%; P=0.02). The increase in cost for each additional quitter in the non-tailored letter group compared with the no letter group was pound 89. CONCLUSIONS: In a large general practice, a brief non-tailored letter effectively increased cessation rates among smokers. A tailored letter was not effective in increasing cessation rates but promoted shift in movement towards cessation ("stage of change") in heavy smokers. As a pragmatic tool to encourage cessation of smoking, a mass mailing of non-tailored letters from general practices is more cost effective than computer tailored letters or no letters.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate, in a primary care setting, a computerised system for generating tailored letters about smoking cessation. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Six general practices in Aberdeen, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 2553 smokers aged 17 to 65. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a questionnaire asking about their smoking. Participants subsequently received either a computer tailored or a non-tailored, standard letter on smoking cessation, or no letter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of validated abstinence at six months; change in intention to stop smoking in the next six months. RESULTS: The validated cessation rate at six months was 3.5% (30/857) (95% confidence interval 2.3% to 4.7%) for the tailored letter group, 4.4% (37/846) (3.0% to 5.8%) for the non-tailored letter group, and 2.6% (22/850) (1.5% to 3.7%) for the control (no letter) group. After adjustment for significant covariates, the cessation rate was 66% greater (-4% to 186%; P=0.07) in the non-tailored letter group than that in the no letter group. Among participants who smoked <20 cigarettes per day, the cessation rate in the non-tailored letter group was 87% greater (0% to 246%; P=0.05) than that in the no letter group. Among heavy smokers who did not quit, a 76% higher rate of positive shift in "stage of change" (intention to quit within a particular period of time) was seen compared with those who received no letter (11% to 180%; P=0.02). The increase in cost for each additional quitter in the non-tailored letter group compared with the no letter group was pound 89. CONCLUSIONS: In a large general practice, a brief non-tailored letter effectively increased cessation rates among smokers. A tailored letter was not effective in increasing cessation rates but promoted shift in movement towards cessation ("stage of change") in heavy smokers. As a pragmatic tool to encourage cessation of smoking, a mass mailing of non-tailored letters from general practices is more cost effective than computer tailored letters or no letters.
Authors: W F Velicer; J O Prochaska; J M Bellis; C C DiClemente; J S Rossi; J L Fava; J H Steiger Journal: Addict Behav Date: 1993 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Sarah Dennis; Anna Williams; Jane Taggart; Anthony Newall; Elizabeth Denney-Wilson; Nicholas Zwar; Tim Shortus; Mark F Harris Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-05-28 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Lori A Bastian; Laura J Fish; Bercedis L Peterson; Andrea K Biddle; Jennifer Garst; Pauline Lyna; Stephanie Molner; Gerold Bepler; Mike Kelley; Francis J Keefe; Colleen M McBride Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-03-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: David W Wetter; Jennifer B McClure; Ludmila Cofta-Woerpel; Tracy J Costello; Lorraine R Reitzel; Michael S Businelle; Paul M Cinciripini Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2011-06
Authors: Jane Taggart; Anna Williams; Sarah Dennis; Anthony Newall; Tim Shortus; Nicholas Zwar; Elizabeth Denney-Wilson; Mark F Harris Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jennifer W Kahende; Brett R Loomis; Bishwa Adhikari; Latisha Marshall Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2008-12-28 Impact factor: 3.390