BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening might be a teachable moment for smoking cessation intervention. The objective was to investigate whether a tailored self-help smoking cessation intervention is more effective in inducing smoking cessation compared to a standard brochure in male smokers who participate in the Dutch-Belgian randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (NELSON trial). METHODS: Two random samples of male smokers who had received either astandard brochure (n=642) or a tailoring questionnaire for computer-tailored smoking cessation information (n=642) were sent a questionnaire to measure smoking behaviour two years after randomisation. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent of the male smokers in the tailored information group returned a completed tailoring questionnaire and thus received the tailored advice. The prolonged smoking abstinence was slightly, but not statistically significant, lower amongst those randomised in the tailored information group (12.5%) compared with the brochure group (15.6%) (OR=0.77 (95%-CI: 0.56-1.06). The level of education and intention to quit smoking significantly predicted smoking cessation at follow-up (p<0.05). The majority of the respondents did not recall whether and which smoking cessation intervention they had received at randomisation after 2-years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The current study showed no advantage of tailored smoking cessation information over standard self-help information amongst male smokers with a long term smoking history who participate in a lung cancer screening trial after two years of follow-up. However, the low percentage participants who actually received the tailored advice limited the ability to find an advantage.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Lung cancer screening might be a teachable moment for smoking cessation intervention. The objective was to investigate whether a tailored self-help smoking cessation intervention is more effective in inducing smoking cessation compared to a standard brochure in male smokers who participate in the Dutch-Belgian randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (NELSON trial). METHODS: Two random samples of male smokers who had received either a standard brochure (n=642) or a tailoring questionnaire for computer-tailored smoking cessation information (n=642) were sent a questionnaire to measure smoking behaviour two years after randomisation. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent of the male smokers in the tailored information group returned a completed tailoring questionnaire and thus received the tailored advice. The prolonged smoking abstinence was slightly, but not statistically significant, lower amongst those randomised in the tailored information group (12.5%) compared with the brochure group (15.6%) (OR=0.77 (95%-CI: 0.56-1.06). The level of education and intention to quit smoking significantly predicted smoking cessation at follow-up (p<0.05). The majority of the respondents did not recall whether and which smoking cessation intervention they had received at randomisation after 2-years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The current study showed no advantage of tailored smoking cessation information over standard self-help information amongst male smokers with a long term smoking history who participate in a lung cancer screening trial after two years of follow-up. However, the low percentage participants who actually received the tailored advice limited the ability to find an advantage.
Authors: Lisa M Fucito; Sharon Czabafy; Peter S Hendricks; Chris Kotsen; Donna Richardson; Benjamin A Toll Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Samantha A Barry; Martin C Tammemagi; Sofiya Penek; Elisabeth C Kassan; Caroline S Dorfman; Thomas L Riley; John Commin; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Charlotte J Hagerman; George Luta; Paula G Bellini; Cassandra Stanton; David B Abrams; Jenna A Kramer; Eric Anderson; Shawn Regis; Andrea McKee; Brady McKee; Ray Niaura; Harry Harper; Michael Ramsaier Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Amy M Berkman; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Kim Dittus; Vicki Hart; Christine M Vatovec; John G King; Ted A James; Susan G Lakoski; Brian L Sprague Journal: Prev Med Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Douglas A Arenberg; David H Au; Kathleen Fennig; Carla R Lamb; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; Maryann Napoli; David E Ost; Charles A Powell; M Patricia Rivera; Christopher G Slatore; Nichole T Tanner; Anil Vachani; Juan P Wisnivesky; Sue H Yoon Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Charlotte J Hagerman; Catherine A Tomko; Cassandra A Stanton; Jenna A Kramer; David B Abrams; Eric D Anderson; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2015