Rachel J Burns1,2, Alexander J Rothman3, Steven S Fu4,5, Bruce Lindgren6, David M Vock7, Anne M Joseph4. 1. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal QC, Canada. Rachel.burns@mail.mcgill.ca. 2. Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada. Rachel.burns@mail.mcgill.ca. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. School of Medicine, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Center for Chronic Disease and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 6. Academic Health Center, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 7. School of Public Health, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Tobacco Longitudinal Care study was a randomized controlled trial for smoking cessation. It demonstrated that longitudinal care for smoking cessation, in which telephone-based counseling and nicotine replacement therapy were offered for 12 months, was more effective than the standard 8-week treatment. PURPOSE: This study aims to identify for whom and how longitudinal care increased the likelihood of abstinence. METHODS: Mediated moderation analyses were utilized across three time points. RESULTS: There was a trend towards smokers who did not respond to treatment (i.e., were still smoking) by 21 days being more likely to be abstinent at 6 months if they received longitudinal care rather than usual care. Similarly, those who did not respond to treatment by 3 months were more likely to be abstinent at 12 months if they received longitudinal care. At both time points, the likelihood of abstinence did not differ across treatment conditions among participants who responded to treatment (i.e., quit smoking). The effect on 6-month outcomes was mediated by satisfaction and readiness to quit. Cessation self-efficacy, satisfaction, and readiness to quit mediated the effect on 12-month outcomes. The effect of treatment condition on the likelihood of abstinence at 18 months was not moderated by response to treatment at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS:Smokers who did not respond to initial treatment benefited from longitudinal care. Differential effects of treatment condition were not observed among those who responded to early treatment. Conditional assignment to longitudinal care may be useful. Determining for whom and how interventions work over time will advance theory and practice.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Tobacco Longitudinal Care study was a randomized controlled trial for smoking cessation. It demonstrated that longitudinal care for smoking cessation, in which telephone-based counseling and nicotine replacement therapy were offered for 12 months, was more effective than the standard 8-week treatment. PURPOSE: This study aims to identify for whom and how longitudinal care increased the likelihood of abstinence. METHODS: Mediated moderation analyses were utilized across three time points. RESULTS: There was a trend towards smokers who did not respond to treatment (i.e., were still smoking) by 21 days being more likely to be abstinent at 6 months if they received longitudinal care rather than usual care. Similarly, those who did not respond to treatment by 3 months were more likely to be abstinent at 12 months if they received longitudinal care. At both time points, the likelihood of abstinence did not differ across treatment conditions among participants who responded to treatment (i.e., quit smoking). The effect on 6-month outcomes was mediated by satisfaction and readiness to quit. Cessation self-efficacy, satisfaction, and readiness to quit mediated the effect on 12-month outcomes. The effect of treatment condition on the likelihood of abstinence at 18 months was not moderated by response to treatment at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers who did not respond to initial treatment benefited from longitudinal care. Differential effects of treatment condition were not observed among those who responded to early treatment. Conditional assignment to longitudinal care may be useful. Determining for whom and how interventions work over time will advance theory and practice.
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: Marloes Kleinjan; Rutger C M E Engels; Jan van Leeuwe; Johannes Brug; Rinka M P van Zundert; Regina J J M van den Eijnden Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Lorra Garey; Brooke Y Kauffman; Kara F Manning; Samar A Taha; Norman B Schmidt; Clayton Neighbors; Michael J Zvolensky Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2019 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Lorra Garey; Samar A Taha; Brooke Y Kauffman; Kara F Manning; Clayton Neighbors; Norman B Schmidt; Michael J Zvolensky Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Steven S Fu; Alexander J Rothman; David M Vock; Bruce Lindgren; Daniel Almirall; Abbie Begnaud; Anne Melzer; Kelsey Schertz; Susan Glaeser; Patrick Hammett; Anne M Joseph Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 2.226