Bruce A Christiansen1, Kevin M Reeder2, Erin G TerBeek3, Michael C Fiore3, Timothy B Baker3. 1. Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; bc1@ctri.wisc.edu. 2. Social Services Department, Salvation Army of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Wauwatosa, WI. 3. Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI;
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES), smoke at very high rates but make fewer and less successful quit attempts than do other smokers. Low-SES smokers have specific beliefs about smoking and quitting that may serve as barriers to making quit attempts. The purpose of this study was to test the impact of a brief intervention addressing these beliefs on making calls to a telephone quit line. METHODS: Of 522 smokers entering the study at 5 Wisconsin Salvation Army (SA) sites, 102 expressed motivation to quit and served as a comparison group. The remaining 420 smokers were not motivated to quit and were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: an intervention group who received brief counseling focused on cessation goals and beliefs, an attention-control group, and a low contact control group. The primary outcome was the rate at which smokers made a call to the Wisconsin tobacco quit line (WTQL) during their SA visit. Secondary outcome measures included motivational variables, stage of change, changes in beliefs about smoking and quitting, and self-reported abstinence. RESULTS: Unmotivated participants in the intervention condition called the WTQL at a significantly higher rate (12.2%) than did those in the 2 control conditions (2.2% and 1.4%) (p < .01) and approached the rate of calling by participants who were initially motivated to quit (15.7%). Intervention condition participants also showed improved motivation to quit and stage of change. CONCLUSIONS: A brief, targeted motivational intervention focusing on cessation goals and beliefs increased the initiation of an evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment by low-SES smokers.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES), smoke at very high rates but make fewer and less successful quit attempts than do other smokers. Low-SES smokers have specific beliefs about smoking and quitting that may serve as barriers to making quit attempts. The purpose of this study was to test the impact of a brief intervention addressing these beliefs on making calls to a telephone quit line. METHODS: Of 522 smokers entering the study at 5 Wisconsin Salvation Army (SA) sites, 102 expressed motivation to quit and served as a comparison group. The remaining 420 smokers were not motivated to quit and were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: an intervention group who received brief counseling focused on cessation goals and beliefs, an attention-control group, and a low contact control group. The primary outcome was the rate at which smokers made a call to the Wisconsin tobacco quit line (WTQL) during their SA visit. Secondary outcome measures included motivational variables, stage of change, changes in beliefs about smoking and quitting, and self-reported abstinence. RESULTS: Unmotivated participants in the intervention condition called the WTQL at a significantly higher rate (12.2%) than did those in the 2 control conditions (2.2% and 1.4%) (p < .01) and approached the rate of calling by participants who were initially motivated to quit (15.7%). Intervention condition participants also showed improved motivation to quit and stage of change. CONCLUSIONS: A brief, targeted motivational intervention focusing on cessation goals and beliefs increased the initiation of an evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment by low-SES smokers.
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Robin Mermelstein; Linda M Collins; Megan E Piper; Douglas E Jorenby; Stevens S Smith; Bruce A Christiansen; Tanya R Schlam; Jessica W Cook; Michael C Fiore Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-04
Authors: Aafje Dotinga; Carola T M Schrijvers; Anthonius J J Voorham; Johan P Mackenbach Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Marlon P Mundt; Timothy B Baker; David L Fraser; Stevens S Smith; Megan E Piper; Michael C Fiore Journal: Value Health Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Kristi E Gamarel; Torsten B Neilands; Amy A Conroy; Samantha E Dilworth; Nadra Lisha; Jonelle M Taylor; Lynae A Darbes; Mallory O Johnson Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Christine Vinci; Cho Lam; Chelsey R Schlechter; Yusuke Shono; Jennifer I Vidrine; David W Wetter Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.626
Authors: Michael S Businelle; Ping Ma; Darla E Kendzor; Summer G Frank; Damon J Vidrine; David W Wetter Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Katarzyna Milcarz; Teresa Makowiec-Dąbrowska; Leokadia Bak-Romaniszyn; Dorota Kaleta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390