Dan Mason1, Hazel Gilbert, Stephen Sutton. 1. Behavioural Science Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. dm316@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: To determine whether web-based tailored cessation advice, based on social cognitive theory and the perspectives on change model, was more effective in aiding a quit attempt than broadly similar web-based advice that was not tailored. DESIGN: Participants were allocated randomly to one of two groups, to receive either a cessation advice report and progress report that were tailored to individual-level characteristics or a cessation advice report that presented standardized (non-tailored) content. Tailoring was based on smoking-related beliefs, personal characteristics and smoking patterns, self-efficacy and outcome expectations. SETTING: Participant enrolment and baseline assessments were conducted remotely online via the study website, with the advice reports presented by the same website. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n = 1758) were visitors to the QUIT website who were based in the United Kingdom, aged 18 years or over and who smoked cigarettes or hand-rolled tobacco. MEASUREMENTS: Follow-up assessments were made at 6 months by telephone interview. The primary outcome measure was self-reported 3 months prolonged abstinence, and secondary outcomes were 1 month prolonged abstinence, 7-day and 24-hour point prevalence abstinence. FINDINGS: The intervention group did not differ from the control group on the primary outcome (9.1% versus 9.3%; odds ratio = 1.02 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.42) or on any of the secondary outcomes. Intervention participants gave more positive evaluations of the materials than control participants. CONCLUSIONS: A web-based intervention that tailored content according to smoking-related beliefs, personal characteristics and smoking patterns, self-efficacy and outcome expectations, was not more effective than web-based materials presenting broadly similar non-tailored information.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To determine whether web-based tailored cessation advice, based on social cognitive theory and the perspectives on change model, was more effective in aiding a quit attempt than broadly similar web-based advice that was not tailored. DESIGN:Participants were allocated randomly to one of two groups, to receive either a cessation advice report and progress report that were tailored to individual-level characteristics or a cessation advice report that presented standardized (non-tailored) content. Tailoring was based on smoking-related beliefs, personal characteristics and smoking patterns, self-efficacy and outcome expectations. SETTING:Participant enrolment and baseline assessments were conducted remotely online via the study website, with the advice reports presented by the same website. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n = 1758) were visitors to the QUIT website who were based in the United Kingdom, aged 18 years or over and who smoked cigarettes or hand-rolled tobacco. MEASUREMENTS: Follow-up assessments were made at 6 months by telephone interview. The primary outcome measure was self-reported 3 months prolonged abstinence, and secondary outcomes were 1 month prolonged abstinence, 7-day and 24-hour point prevalence abstinence. FINDINGS: The intervention group did not differ from the control group on the primary outcome (9.1% versus 9.3%; odds ratio = 1.02 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.42) or on any of the secondary outcomes. Intervention participants gave more positive evaluations of the materials than control participants. CONCLUSIONS: A web-based intervention that tailored content according to smoking-related beliefs, personal characteristics and smoking patterns, self-efficacy and outcome expectations, was not more effective than web-based materials presenting broadly similar non-tailored information.
Authors: Brian G Danaher; Herbert H Severson; Judy A Andrews; Milagra S Tyler; Edward Lichtenstein; Timothy G Woolley; John R Seeley Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Midge N Ray; Ellen Funkhouser; Jessica H Williams; Rajani S Sadasivam; Gregg H Gilbert; Heather L Coley; D Brad Rindal; Thomas K Houston Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 5.043
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
Authors: Amanda Richardson; Amanda L Graham; Nathan Cobb; Haijun Xiao; Aaron Mushro; David Abrams; Donna Vallone Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Felix Naughton; James Jamison; Sue Boase; Melanie Sloan; Hazel Gilbert; A Toby Prevost; Dan Mason; Susan Smith; James Brimicombe; Robert Evans; Stephen Sutton Journal: Addiction Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 6.526