Amy V Lukowski1, Chad D Morris2, Susan E Young2, David Tinkelman3. 1. Health Initiatives, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO; lukowskia@njhealth.org. 2. Behavioral Health and Wellness Program, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO. 3. Health Initiatives, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO;
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tobacco cessation quitlines are generally effective in assisting smokers who want to quit. However, up to half of quitline callers report a history of mental health conditions and/or recent emotional challenges (MH+), and there has been little study of cessation outcomes for this population. Moreover, evidence suggests that callers who expect their MH+ to interfere with quit attempts have less success with quitting. This study compares rates of quitting among MH+ callers and callers with no mental health conditions or recent emotional challenges (MH-). It also compares rates of quitting between those who felt that mental health issues would interfere with their quit attempt (MHIQ+) and those who did not (MHIQ-). METHODS: National Jewish Health collected telephone data from 6 state quitlines. Participants received up to 5 coaching sessions and up to 8 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy. Smoking status was assessed during 3-month and 6-month post-intervention calls in a subset of participants (n = 4,960) for whom follow-up interviews were completed. RESULTS: Participation in follow-up interviews was not significantly different between callers with MH+ and those without MH- (p = .13). However, at follow-up MH+ participants were less likely to report a successful quit compared with MH- (3-month: 31% vs. 43%; 6-month: 33% vs. 43%; both p < .001). Among MH+ participants, those reporting MHIQ+ were significantly less likely to quit compared with those who were MHIQ- (3-month: 24% vs. 34%; 6-month: 26% vs. 35%; both p ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of evaluating both the mental health status of individuals seeking support for smoking cessation as well as the individuals' expectations for success, because they may need more tailored intervention to ensure the potential for better compared with outcomes.
INTRODUCTION:Tobacco cessation quitlines are generally effective in assisting smokers who want to quit. However, up to half of quitline callers report a history of mental health conditions and/or recent emotional challenges (MH+), and there has been little study of cessation outcomes for this population. Moreover, evidence suggests that callers who expect their MH+ to interfere with quit attempts have less success with quitting. This study compares rates of quitting among MH+ callers and callers with no mental health conditions or recent emotional challenges (MH-). It also compares rates of quitting between those who felt that mental health issues would interfere with their quit attempt (MHIQ+) and those who did not (MHIQ-). METHODS: National Jewish Health collected telephone data from 6 state quitlines. Participants received up to 5 coaching sessions and up to 8 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy. Smoking status was assessed during 3-month and 6-month post-intervention calls in a subset of participants (n = 4,960) for whom follow-up interviews were completed. RESULTS: Participation in follow-up interviews was not significantly different between callers with MH+ and those without MH- (p = .13). However, at follow-up MH+ participants were less likely to report a successful quit compared with MH- (3-month: 31% vs. 43%; 6-month: 33% vs. 43%; both p < .001). Among MH+ participants, those reporting MHIQ+ were significantly less likely to quit compared with those who were MHIQ- (3-month: 24% vs. 34%; 6-month: 26% vs. 35%; both p ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of evaluating both the mental health status of individuals seeking support for smoking cessation as well as the individuals' expectations for success, because they may need more tailored intervention to ensure the potential for better compared with outcomes.
Authors: Uma S Nair; Melanie L Bell; Nicole P Yuan; Betsy C Wertheim; Cynthia A Thomson Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2018 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Amy M Cohn; Kang Zhao; Sarah Cha; Xi Wang; Michael S Amato; Jennifer L Pearson; George D Papandonatos; Amanda L Graham Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Jennifer W Tidey; Lauren R Pacek; Joseph S Koopmeiners; Ryan Vandrey; Natalie Nardone; David J Drobes; Neal L Benowitz; Sarah S Dermody; Andrine Lemieux; Rachel L Denlinger; Rachel Cassidy; Mustafa al'Absi; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Eric C Donny Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Noreen L Watson; Jaimee L Heffner; Kristin E Mull; Jennifer B McClure; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Daniel Rodriguez; Tiffanie Goulazian; Andrew A Strasser; Jennifer O Loughlin; Erika N Dugas; Chol Kuoiloi; Brian L Hitsman; Robert Schnoll Journal: J Smok Cessat Date: 2018-04-02
Authors: Gary J Tedeschi; Sharon E Cummins; Christopher M Anderson; Robert M Anthenelli; Yue-Lin Zhuang; Shu-Hong Zhu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.240