AIM: To assess the effectiveness of a program of computer-generated tailored advice for callers to a telephone helpline, and to assess whether it enhanced a series of callback telephone counselling sessions in aiding smoking cessation. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial comparing: (1) untailored self-help materials; (2) computer-generated tailored advice only, and (3) computer-generated tailored advice plus callback telephone counselling. Assessment surveys were conducted at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. SETTING: Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1578 smokers who called the Quitline service and agreed to participate. MEASUREMENTS: Smoking status at follow-up; duration of cessation, if quit; use of nicotine replacement therapy; and extent of participation in the callback service. FINDINGS: At the 3-month follow-up, significantly more (chi2(2) = 16.9; P < 0.001) participants in the computer-generated tailored advice plus telephone counselling condition were not smoking (21%) than in either the computer-generated advice only (12%) or the control condition (12%). Proportions reporting not smoking at the 12-month follow-up were 26%, 23% and 22%, respectively (NS) for point prevalence, and for 9 months sustained abstinence; 8.2, 6.0, and 5.0 (NS). In the telephone counselling group, those receiving callbacks were more likely than those who did not to have sustained abstinence at 12 months (10.2 compared with 4.0, P < 0.05). Logistic regression on 3-month data showed significant independent effects on cessation of telephone counselling and use of NRT, but not of computer-generated tailored advice. CONCLUSION: Computer-generated tailored advice did not enhance telephone counselling, nor have any independent effect on cessation. This may be due to poor timing of the computer-generated tailored advice and poor integration of the two modes of advice.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To assess the effectiveness of a program of computer-generated tailored advice for callers to a telephone helpline, and to assess whether it enhanced a series of callback telephone counselling sessions in aiding smoking cessation. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial comparing: (1) untailored self-help materials; (2) computer-generated tailored advice only, and (3) computer-generated tailored advice plus callback telephone counselling. Assessment surveys were conducted at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. SETTING: Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1578 smokers who called the Quitline service and agreed to participate. MEASUREMENTS: Smoking status at follow-up; duration of cessation, if quit; use of nicotine replacement therapy; and extent of participation in the callback service. FINDINGS: At the 3-month follow-up, significantly more (chi2(2) = 16.9; P < 0.001) participants in the computer-generated tailored advice plus telephone counselling condition were not smoking (21%) than in either the computer-generated advice only (12%) or the control condition (12%). Proportions reporting not smoking at the 12-month follow-up were 26%, 23% and 22%, respectively (NS) for point prevalence, and for 9 months sustained abstinence; 8.2, 6.0, and 5.0 (NS). In the telephone counselling group, those receiving callbacks were more likely than those who did not to have sustained abstinence at 12 months (10.2 compared with 4.0, P < 0.05). Logistic regression on 3-month data showed significant independent effects on cessation of telephone counselling and use of NRT, but not of computer-generated tailored advice. CONCLUSION: Computer-generated tailored advice did not enhance telephone counselling, nor have any independent effect on cessation. This may be due to poor timing of the computer-generated tailored advice and poor integration of the two modes of advice.
Authors: Elba C Díaz-Toro; Maria E Fernández; Virmarie Correa-Fernández; William A Calo; Ana Patricia Ortiz; Luz M Mejía; Carlos A Mazas; Maria del Carmen Santos-Ortiz; David W Wetter Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2014
Authors: Jack F Hollis; Timothy A McAfee; Jeffrey L Fellows; Susan M Zbikowski; Michael Stark; Karen Riedlinger Journal: Tob Control Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Benjamin A Toll; K Michael Cummings; Stephanie S O'Malley; Shannon Carlin-Menter; Sherry A McKee; Andrew Hyland; Ran Wu; Jessica Hopkins; Paula Celestino Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Benjamin A Toll; Steve Martino; Stephanie S O'Malley; Lisa M Fucito; Sherry A McKee; Christopher W Kahler; Alana M Rojewski; Martin C Mahoney; Ran Wu; Paula Celestino; Srinivasa Seshadri; James Koutsky; Andrew Hyland; K Michael Cummings Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2014-11-24
Authors: Taghrid Asfar; Robert C Klesges; Stacy D Sanford; Deborah Sherrill-Mittleman; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson; Grant Somes; James M Boyett; Harry Lando Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Man Ping Wang; Yi Nam Suen; William Ho-Cheung Li; Christina Oi-Bun Lam; Socrates Yong-da Wu; Antonio Cho-Shing Kwong; Vienna W Lai; Sophia S Chan; Tai Hing Lam Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Flora Tzelepis; Christine L Paul; John Wiggers; Raoul A Walsh; Jenny Knight; Sarah L Duncan; Christophe Lecathelinais; Afaf Girgis; Justine Daly Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 7.552