| Literature DB >> 27660494 |
Sun S Kim1, Somporn Sitthisongkram1, Kunsook Bernstein2, Hua Fang3, Won S Choi4, Douglas Ziedonis5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Korean women are reluctant to pursue in-person smoking cessation treatment due to stigma attached to women smokers and prefer treatment such as telephone and online smoking cessation programs that they can access secretively at home. However, there is some evidence that face-to-face interaction is the most helpful intervention component for them to quit smoking.Entities:
Keywords: Asian American; nicotine; remote biochemical validation; smoking cessation; videoconferencing; women
Year: 2016 PMID: 27660494 PMCID: PMC5019447 DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S109819
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Womens Health ISSN: 1179-1411
Figure 1CONSORT diagram showing a flow of subjects in the study.
Abbreviation: CONSORT, CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.
Baseline characteristics of the groups
| Characteristic | Telephone (n=25) | Video (n=24) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (range =20–63 years) | 44.9±11.7 | 45.3±12.8 | 0.80 |
| Marital status | 0.78 | ||
| Married or living with partner | 12 (48.0) | 13 (54.2) | |
| Single or divorced | 13 (52.0) | 11 (45.8) | |
| Education | 0.06 | ||
| Elementary to high school | 13 (52.0) | 11 (45.8) | |
| Some years in college | 6 (24.0) | 1 (4.2) | |
| Baccalaureate or higher degree | 6 (24.0) | 12 (50.0) | |
| Annual family income | 0.58 | ||
| <$40,000 | 9 (36.0) | 11 (45.8) | |
| $40,000–$79,999 | 4 (16.0) | 5 (20.8) | |
| >$80,000 | 12 (42.0) | 8 (33.3) | |
| Medical insurance | 0.36 | ||
| Yes | 15 (60.0) | 18 (75.0) | |
| No | 10 (40.0) | 6 (25.0) | |
| Employed | 0.10 | ||
| Yes | 16 (64.0) | 21 (87.5) | |
| No | 9 (36.0) | 3 (12.5) | |
| Acculturation (range =1.0–3.4) | 1.9±0.5 | 1.8±0.5 | 0.57 |
| Age at smoking onset (range =13–43) | 22.6±5.6 | 23.5±7.1 | 0.99 |
| Cigarettes per day (range =10–31) | 17.2±6.4 | 15.2±4.4 | 0.28 |
| Indoor house smoking | 0.25 | ||
| Yes | 13 (52.0) | 8 (33.3) | |
| No | 12 (48.0) | 16 (66.4) | |
| Indoor office smoking | 1.00 | ||
| Yes | 2 (8.0) | 1 (4.2) | |
| No | 23 (92.0) | 23 (95.8) | |
| 24 hours abstinence in the past year | 0.38 | ||
| Yes | 14 (64.0) | 17 (66.7) | |
| No | 11 (36.0) | 7 (33.3) | |
| Presence of other smokers in the family | 0.55 | ||
| Yes | 10 (40.0) | 7 (29.2) | |
| No | 15 (60.0) | 17 (70.8) | |
| FTND score (range =2–9) | 6.0±1.7 | 5.6±1.6 | 0.51 |
| Autonomy over tobacco (range =21–48) | 35.4±7.3 | 33.3±7.9 | 0.39 |
| Alcohol use problems (range =0–28) | 5.0±7.5 | 4.8±7.3 | 0.92 |
| Depressive symptoms (range =0–49) | 13.8±11.4 | 13.6±16.3 | 0.55 |
| Perceived risks of quitting (range =1.9–6.6) | 5.3±0.9 | 4.8±1.0 | 0.05 |
| Perceived benefits of quitting (range =3.6–6.9) | 5.8±0.8 | 6.0±0.8 | 0.35 |
| Perceived family norm for quitting (range =1–6) | 4.4±1.4 | 4.0±2.0 | 0.46 |
| Perceived peer norm for quitting (range =−2–6) | 2.6±2.4 | 2.5±2.6 | 0.98 |
| Self-efficacy in quitting (range =10–44) | 26.0±7.8 | 29.5±8.6 | 0.09 |
Abbreviations: FTND, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; SD, standard deviation.
Seven-day point-prevalence abstinence by intervention condition
| Intervention condition | Post-quit 1 month | Post-quit 2 months | Post-quit 3 months | Post-quit 3 months |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Telephone arm | 48.0% | 52.0% | 40.0% | 28.0% |
| Video arm | 66.7% | 58.3% | 41.7% | 33.3% |
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier survival curve of days of abstinence between the two arms.
Note: Log-rank test χ2 =0.13, P=0.72.