Stephen Sutton1, Hazel Gilbert. 1. Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, UK. srs34@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of individually tailored smoking cessation advice letters as an adjunct to telephone counselling and generic self-help materials. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The UK Quitline. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1508 current smokers and recent ex-smokers. INTERVENTIONS: The control group received usual care (telephone counselling and an information pack sent through the post). The intervention group received in addition a computer-generated individually tailored advice letter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All outcomes were assessed at 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was self-reported prolonged abstinence for at least 3 months. Secondary outcomes were self-reported prolonged abstinence for at least 1 month and 7-day and 24-hour point-prevalence abstinence. RESULTS: For the sample as a whole, quit rates did not differ significantly between the two conditions. However, among the majority (n = 1164) who were smokers at baseline, quit rates were consistently higher in the intervention group: prolonged abstinence for 3 months, 12.2% versus 9.0% [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-2.04, P = 0.080); prolonged abstinence for 1 month, 16.4% versus 11.3% (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.09-2.15, P = 0.013); 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, 18.9% versus 12.7% (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.15-2.19, P = 0.004); 24-hour point-prevalence abstinence, 20.9% versus 15.4% (OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.07-1.96, P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The results for the smokers are encouraging in showing a small but useful effect of the tailored letter on quit rate. Versions of the tailoring program could be used on the web and in general practices, pharmacies and primary care trusts.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of individually tailored smoking cessation advice letters as an adjunct to telephone counselling and generic self-help materials. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The UK Quitline. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1508 current smokers and recent ex-smokers. INTERVENTIONS: The control group received usual care (telephone counselling and an information pack sent through the post). The intervention group received in addition a computer-generated individually tailored advice letter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All outcomes were assessed at 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was self-reported prolonged abstinence for at least 3 months. Secondary outcomes were self-reported prolonged abstinence for at least 1 month and 7-day and 24-hour point-prevalence abstinence. RESULTS: For the sample as a whole, quit rates did not differ significantly between the two conditions. However, among the majority (n = 1164) who were smokers at baseline, quit rates were consistently higher in the intervention group: prolonged abstinence for 3 months, 12.2% versus 9.0% [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-2.04, P = 0.080); prolonged abstinence for 1 month, 16.4% versus 11.3% (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.09-2.15, P = 0.013); 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, 18.9% versus 12.7% (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.15-2.19, P = 0.004); 24-hour point-prevalence abstinence, 20.9% versus 15.4% (OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.07-1.96, P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The results for the smokers are encouraging in showing a small but useful effect of the tailored letter on quit rate. Versions of the tailoring program could be used on the web and in general practices, pharmacies and primary care trusts.
Authors: Eleanor Mann; A Toby Prevost; Simon Griffin; Ian Kellar; Stephen Sutton; Michael Parker; Simon Sanderson; Ann Louise Kinmonth; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Catherine Chamberlain; Alison O'Mara-Eves; Sandy Oliver; Jenny R Caird; Susan M Perlen; Sandra J Eades; James Thomas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-10-23
Authors: Hazel Gilbert; Stephen Sutton; Richard Morris; Steve Parrot; Simon Galton; Irwin Nazareth Journal: Trials Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Stephen Sutton; Susan Smith; James Jamison; Sue Boase; Dan Mason; A Toby Prevost; James Brimicombe; Melanie Sloan; Hazel Gilbert; Felix Naughton Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 3.295